Extraordinary claims needs extraordinary proof

time, effort, guts, not being afraid being ridiculed & awareness!

An HUGE soundless Triangle

Unidentified Flying Object

tracked down & confirmed on:

3 ground Radars + 2 F-16 Radars !!!

  RealPlayer-Alternative

use right mouse click then 'save target as':

  HARD-UFO-EVIDENCE-Unsolved-Mysteries-

this EXPLOSIVE subject is systematically poor,

and extremely bad & -subjectively- "summarized"

by so called "down to earth" (arm chair) sceptics

and these pseudo sceptics "advises" our

mainstream media editorial staffs (...)

convenient for the media to do NOT real investigation

because they CLAIM to be "informed" by "experts"

but it deserves much better treatment ...

Time for REAL (re)search for the -whole- truth

I know, it costs to much more effort & time

but it is worth it ...  and you may be surprised

how deep the rabbit hole -really- goes ...

there is enough b.s. and disinformation

so PLEASE editorial staffs.... read &

investigate a MUCH better -summary- like

the one here below by Marie De Brosses

John Kuhles

An HUGE soundless (!) Triangle

Unidentified Flying Object tracked down on:

3 ground Radars +  2 F-16 Radars !!!

by Marie-Theresa De Brosses

(you may distribute this text freely)


The Belgium Defense Minister authorized

us to publish this report. It is the "scoop of the sky."
 

The article is referring to two photos of the radar screens in the F-16
which are derived from an internal recording device in the plane.

Photo one shows the UFO as a diamond

on the screen framed by short vertical lines indictaing
that the pilot has instructed the computer to follow the target.

The comparison of the two photos supports statements by the pilots that the
UFO dove from 2,000 meters (7,000 ft) to 00, indicating that it was below

the 200 meter limit on the radar. This occured in ONE second !!!

are the incontestable witnesses of a meeting of science & fiction.

In an unprecedented action, the Belgium Air Force has released pictures
of the radar images of UFOs intercepted by the pilots of their F-16 fighters.

It was the precision and clarity of the pictures

that convinced the Defense Minister to order

full resources deployed in the gigantic chase

of the UFO during the weekend.

PARIS MATCH takes you behind the symbols and

numbers of these exceptional pictures to discover
the incredible performance of those flying objects

which are very real but nonetheless unidentified.

We may not be the only ones in the universe.

There are people in the military services who are normally silent on this subject but who now say:
the UFOs are not a myth. On June 22nd, for the first time in history,
an Air Force revealed an important piece of this story which is not science fiction.

On this day, after going through a meticulous security screening,
I find my- self in the headquarters of the Belgium Air Force near Brussels.

In a small room, General DeBrouwer (year later: NATO-General Major),
Chief of Operations of the Belgium Air Force, started a video tape recorder.

On the screen appeared the film that was brought back in the "black box"
of the F-16 that was launched to chase the UFO.

This, it turned out, was not really the important chase, which would happen two weeks later,
when practically all of Belgium tried to capture the UFO.

But until now we were not told about the one General De Brouwer was about to describe.

The Belgium military had been on alert since November 1989,
when numerous reports by the Gendarmerie
(National police force) began pouring in daily telling of
observations of UFOs above Belgium territory.

It had started on the crazy night of November 29, 1989,

during which 30 groups of witnesses,
among them three Police patrols,

scattered over 800 square kilometers of territory between Liege and
the German/Netherlands border, reported UFOs. (!)

All of the wit- nesses observed for hours a huge strange triangular object nearly silent,
maneuvering at extreem low speed and very low altitude,

without creating the least amount of turbulence.

As do the world's Air Forces, the Belgian military have at their
disposal supersonic interceptor airplanes ready 25 hours
a day to take off with five minutes notice.

In this case we are talking about two F-16 single pilot fighters, armed with missiles.

Headquarters was prudent and conservative.
During the previous month the two planes have twice been
sent in response to sightings but without results.

The first time they saw nothing.

The second instance was attributed to an advertising searchlight for a night club.

On the night of March 30th, one of the callers reporting a UFO was a
Captain of the National Police at Pinson,
and Headquarters decided to make a serious effort to verify the reports.

In addition to the visual sightings, two radar installations ALSO saw the UFO.
One radar is at Glons, southeast of Brussels, which is part of the NATO Defense group,
and one at Semmerzake, west of the Capitol, which copntrols the military and civilian traffic
of ther entire Belgian territory.

The range of the two radars is 300 KM,

which is more than enough to cover the area where the reports took place.
In this region the land is fairly flat, rolling country without any prominent hills.

The radar has a perfect view of all flying objects with an altitude only above
200 meters over the ground.

Nevertheless, Headquarters determined to do some very precise
studies during the next 55 minutes to eliminate the possibility of
prosaic explanations for the radar images.

Excellent atmospheric conditions prevailed (!!!),
and there was no possibility of false echoes due to temperature inversions.

(and even if it was, then WHY the intelligent behavior ?**)

All military and civilian airplanes are equipped with a device called a
transponder which permits their immediate identification
on the radar screen in the form of a coded signal.

The radar echo received on that night was like that of an airplane
that was moving at very low speed,
about 50 KPH, and frequently changing direction and altitude.

But it did not send any identifying transpond er signal.

Naturally, the Belgian Air Force can't permit an unidentified object to fly over its territory.
So at 0005 hours the order was given to the F-16s to take off and to find the intruder.

The lead pilot concentrated on his radar screen, which at night is his best organ of vision.
 

The F-16 is equipped with very sophisticated equipment,

including special CHASE RADAR (!),

which is not fixed directly ahead of the airplane,

but makes a wide search in an arc of 90 degrees left and right of the nose.

Slightly behind the lead fighter, the wingman in the second F-16 followed the movements of the first jet,
concentrating on maintaining contact with the center of coordination of the search.

Suddenly the two fighters spotted the intruder on their radar screens,
ap pearing like a little bee dancing on the scope.

Using their joy sticks like a video game, the pilots ordered the onboard computers to pursue the target.

As soon as lock-on was achieved (!), the target appeared on the screen as a diamond shape,
telling the pilots that from that moment on the F-16s will remain tracking the object automatically.

On the screen is indicated the object's position, distance and speed.
The object was very close to the fighters.

On this portion of the video tape that Nato General Major De Brouwer has,

in such an exceptional manner,
allowed us to see, we can hear the radio exchange of the two pilots.

The emotions of the pilots are clearly perceptible.
"Look," Nato General Major De Brouwer tells me stopping the VCR,
and showing me the diamond shape on the screen,

"At this stage in the chase in our military jargon it means a successful interception."

Then I said, in layman's terms, what does a "successful interception" mean?

He answered,

"Our fighter planes are armed with automatically self-directed missiles.
Once they are launched internal computers in the missiles intelligently
guide the missiles to the target by themselves.
We wanted to identify the intruder."

The pilot did not even have time to start this procedure,
which requires the fighter's radar to stay locked on
for at least six seconds.

But the object had speeded up from an initial velocity of 280 KPH to 1,800 KPH,
while descending from 3,000 meters to 1,700 meters...in one second!

This fantastic acceleration corresponds to 40 Gs.

[A "G" is a unit of acceleration. One G is equivalent to the gravitational pull of the earth, 9.81 m/sec/sec.]

It would cause immediate death to a human on board.
The limit of what a pilot can take is about 8 Gs.

(with special fuid-suits 9,5 G...  but still not enough!)

And the trajectory of the object was extremely disconcerting.
It arrived at 1,700 meters altitude, then it dove rapidly toward the ground at an altitude under 200 meters,
and in doing so escaped from the radars of the fighters and ground units at Glons and Semmerzake.

This maneuver took place over the suburbs of Brussels,
which are so full of man-made lights that the pilots lost sight of the object beneath them.

"In any event, it was out of the question for the F-16 to catch up with the object at this low altitude,
where the density of the air limits the speed to 1,300 KPH.

Above that speed, the temperature in the compressors of the jet tur bines would cause the engines to burst,"
said General DeBrouwer. "There was a logic behind the motions of the object." (!)

Everything indicates that this object was intelligently directed to escape from the pursuing planes.
During the next hours the scenario repeated twice.

The Commander of the Belgian Air Force gave me a detailed report which had been produced by the
Belgian Society For The Study of Special Phenomena (Sobeps) in cooperation with the Air Force.
[SOBEPS / 74 Avenue Paul-Janson / 1070 Bruxel les, Belgium / phone: 19 32 2 524 28 48.

Publish quarterly journal INFORESPACE]

The report states:

"In three cases the pilots managed to get their radar locked on the object,
with the immediate result that the object's behavior drastically changed.

The object literally played hide and seek with the fighters.

It dived toward the ground to evade the airborne and ground radars.
Then it climbed back into radar range in a liesurely manner, thus initiating a new chase.

This fantastic game of hide and seek was observed from the ground

by a great number of witnesses, among them miltary & 20 national policemen

who saw both the object and the F-16s.

The encounter lasted 75 minutes (!!!)

but nobody heard the supersonic boom which should have been
present when the object flew through the sonic barrier.

No physical damage was reported.

Given the low altitude and the speed of the object, many windows should have been broken.

So, for the first time in history, a newspaper reporter was allowed to see a document which
established proof of an interception of a UFO by a military fighter.

I have seen on the video screen the flight maneuvers

and the extraordinary changes in speed of the UFO.

All the details of this affair are related in the report which has just been released by Sobeps.
 

This collaboration between the Air Force of a nation and a private
research group is without precedent and must be taken very seriously.

ALSO, the competence of the civilian researchers is worthy of trust.
 

This group includes several scientists with excellent credentials such as

physicist Leo Brenig, Professor at the University of Brussels

and August Meesen, Professor at the Catholic University of Louvain,
who has belonged to Sobeps since its crea tion 18 years ago.

On a television interview, Mr. Guy Coeme the Minister of Defense,
declared that he had authorized the AIr Force to release

---ALL--- UFO-information at their disposal to Sobeps.

After having seen this dramatic sequence,

I posed a number of questions to General DeBrouwer.
 

First, "could the object have been a radiosonde balloon?" (?)

small comment of John_Kuhles:    this is the same stupid question

AFTER looking at all the evidence of a Atomic bomb exploding:

seeing all the physical effects, sound, wind, destruction of buildings etc. etc.

and THEN asking the SCIENTISTS  "could it be ALSO  a fire-cracker" ?

how more stupid can a question be ?! (...)

but General DeBrouwer stays calm... and say's:

"No, the object acted as if it was totally independent of the winds,

and we have done, among other things, a complete review of meteorlogical conditions.

This is why we did not publish the report until now.
We wanted to do a complete study to verify all aspects of the case.
 

Our military DEFENSE system is not prepared for this sort of thing.

We had to analyze and interpret the data from the recording inside the fighters."

Is it a "natural phenomenon", or perhaps the debris from rockets or satellites or "space junk"?

Nato General DeBrouwer:
 

"No, a meteorite or a fragment of a rocket does not enter the atmosphere in a zig zag fashion.
 

The analysis of the radar traces showed numer ous changes in direction, and the atmosphereic conditions that prevailed pre cluded any electromagnetic phenomenon as the cause."

But I asked how about the famous F-117 the American Stealth airplane, which many people think may be responsible? (to ease their troubled minds? JK)
 

Nato General DeBrouwer:

"This airplane is absolutely designed for penetration at low altitude.

On the other hand it has a minimum speed of 278 KPH

and the UFOs speed went down (after super highspeeds) to 40 KPH.

The F-117 does NOT have engines that can be tilted down for very slow speed flight.
(AND THAT WITHOUT MAKING ANY SOUND ?!!)

ALSO no airplane is capable of flying at 1,800 KPH or so low to the ground without creating a sonic boom."

Then he gave me a telex sent by the Military Attache of the U.S. Ambassador to the Commander of the Belgian Air Force confirming that the Stealth airplane was never stationed on European territory nor did it ever fly over that territory.

Professor Jean Pierre Petit accompanied me in my visit to the Belgian Air Force Headquarters.

He once served as a controller for jet interception exercises.

Petit is a senior Physicist and a director of research with the National Center for Scientific Research of France.

He has recently published a book en titled "Investigation of UFOs," published by Editions Albin Michel, and makes this strong statement:

"In reality, there is no machine made by man either an airplane or a missile that is capable of such performance.

Specifically, flying at the speed of sound without making a sonic boom.
What degree of confidence can we place on this statement?

The same as that in Astrophysics connected with the first detection of a Supernova in 1987 in the Magellanic Clouds galactic group.

Proof of the existence of this stellar cataclysm we call a Supernova relies on this single unique observation.

I am completely convinced that this type of UFO observation by radar has already happened many times over the past 30 years either by means of the sophisticated radar of the F-16 which is typical of that used by the world's air forces for the past ten years or before that by conventional radar.
 

And those countries who have had radar contacts have kept the fact in strict secrecy to avoid public panic."
But what is happening right now, what is the reason for this sudden revelation of the truth.

Nato General DeBrouwer:

"We are living in a time that is the beginning of a period of opennes.
First the Berlin Wall Crumbled, now the wall of silence about UFOs is falling.
Concerning the UFOs we are enterring a phase completely different from the earlier ones.
It is the end of commercialism and fakery. The true scientists are finally making their appearance.
Look at the work of Professor Meesen!"

"Sobeps has collected more than two thousand eyewitness reports from the UFO wave over Belgium.
One report is especially interesting.

On the night of March 31, at a location 30 KM southeast of Brussels, three completely reliable wit nesses had a sighting. They were Lucien Clerebaut, Secretary General of Sobeps, Patrick Ferrym, a Moving Picture Producer,
and Jose Fernandez. They observed a bright luminous light low on the horizon.

The light got bigger and closer, and was seen to be an object of triangular form with rounded angles.

It was carrying four spotlights and the periphery of the object had numerous smaller lights around it.
As it passed over their heads at an altitude which they estimated to be 300 to 400 meters,
the object had a diameter six times that of a full moon.

Mr. Ferrym took four pictures of the object with a very
high sensitivity film with an ASA of 1,600.

As a control he photographed an ordinary airplane several minutes later,
using the same shutter opening and speed."

"When the film was developed he got a surprise.
The position lights of the airplane were clearly shown on the pictures.

But the `spotlights' on the UFO, which to the naked eye had been

much stronger than the lights on the airplane,
were hardly discernible.

The general form of the UFO, which had ALSO been clearly visible, was lost on the film.
It should be noted that the UFO was ALSO much closer to the observers than the airplane."

Recalling that a simple infrared ray can prevent some films from being ex posed,
Professor Meesen performed an experiment in his laboratory.

Using a prism, he projected directly on unexposed film a spectrum of light, going from red to purple,
superimposing an infrared ray on the lower part of the negative.

When the film was developed, the spectrum of light is perfectly visible in the portion of the film
untouched by the infrared ray but considerably attentuated, though not completely annihilated,
where the infrared light struck the film."

The Professor continued,
"If the UFOs are really a physical object, and if they propagate infrared light,
it would be quite normal that photographs would contain some surprises when they were developed.

This could include the total disappearance of the object that had been observed visually.
This would explain the very low number of pictures that we have received in this UFO wave as well as
the failure to get close up pictures.

Professor Meesen remained very conservative.

As a good disciple of the famous scientist Claude Bernard, he is faithful to the Scientific Method,
which consists of observing facts, then proposing hypotheses to explain the facts and
finally accomplishing experimental verification of the hypotheses.

To him it is absolutley essential to study this enigmatic file of UFO reports:

"There are too many independent eyewitness reports to ignore.
Too many of the reports des cribe coherent physical effects

and there is an agreement among the accounts concerning what was observed.

"If all of these witnesses are lying, then it is a mental disease of such novelty and proportions
that it must be studied".

But of course there are ALSO physical effects.

The Air Force report allows us to ap proach the problem in a rational and scientific way.

The simplest POSSIBLE hypothesis is that the reports are caused by extraterrestrial visitors,
but that hypothesis carries with it other problems.

We are not in a rush to form a conclusion, but ALSO to study the mystery."

When I first met Prof. Meesen, he had not yet seen the document

that was shown to me by General DeBrouwer.

This was the Belgian Air Force report on the successful interceptions of March 30,
which allowed us to understand why the military had placed at the disposal

of Sobeps such facilities as the F-16 inter ceptors and a twin engine Hawker airplane.

The Hawker could carry a large number of researchers

and many measuring devices,
including an enormous infrared camera.

During this eventful weekend, which drew in tens of thousands of witnesses,
the military had put top priority on the UFO, but was remaining silent.

They wanted to know more before speaking.

The press was astonished by the "unsuccessful" hunt on this Easter weekend.
But it is all clear now.
We could not say that the UFO did not actually meet us,
because there were many observations from the ground.

But if the device had stayed under 200 meters in altitude,
it would have been undetectable by radar.

Now the sightings have dribbled off, the witnesses rarer and rarer.
But the questions still remain.

How disconcerting this wave of UFO sightings over Belgium!

First of all, why Belgium?

Why these thousands of witnesses in a six month period?

In previous decades witnesses often described landings,

but why were there no landing reports?

Why the triangular shape of the UFO,

reported by more than 90% of the witnesses?

At the moment, all of these are questions with out an answer.

"For us, the release of this report by the Belgian Air Force

and the confidence in us that it bespeaks
is the reward for 18 years of work,"

concluded Lucien Clerebaut of Sobeps.

Regardless of the frustrating irregularity of this phenomenon
(waves of sightings mixed with long periods of abscence),
and regardless of the sarcasms of those scientists who are violently hostile to this
kind of investigation which they consider to be a sort of scientific disease,
a few eminent scien tists such as

Professors Meesen, Brenig and Petit continue their methodical work.

Now is the time to help them.

Paris Match article on the Belgium UFO sightings

EYES ONLY VOL. 1, No. 1

The Ufological wit and wisdom of Bob Durant or, the material I
prepared for the New Jersey MUFON Newsletter but they wouldn't print.

* * *

PARIS MATCH is a slick French weekly something like a classy
cross between TIME and PEOPLE MAGAZINE.

It is very widely readand something of a journalistic institution.

Although the reader can count on the latest gossip concerning Charles and Lady Di,
each issue ALSO contains serious coverage of political and scientific issues.

Thanks to the linguistic abilities of my wife,
I havetranslated an astonishing article that appeared in the July 5,1990 issue.

This recounts a series of sightings of a UFO over Belgium.

There were thousands of witnesses,
and the object was tracked simultaneously by two ground radar installations and
by the airborne intercept radars of two F-16 fighters sent to chase it.

But by far the most significant aspect of this case is that
the Belgium government released all the data and worked in close
cooperation with a civilia UFO research organization.

To the best of my knowledge, this is unique in the history of ufology.

Indeed it is the "political" aspect that prodded me to take
the considerable time and effort to make this translation
available to ufologists in the U.S. Please "network" this
document as you see fit.

Sincerely,

BOB (signed)

R.J. Durant

* * *

Excerpted from the IUR,
May/June, 1991; Volume 16, Number 3.

 

THE BELGIa UFO-SIGHTINGS

by Prof. Auguste Meessen

- - Auguste Meessen is Professor of Physics at the Catholic
University of Louvain. This article, which first appeared in the
November 1990 issue of Inforespace, is reprinted by permission.

It was translated from Frensh to English by Andrea Donderi,

Mark Rodeghier, and W. D. Milner.

The sightings that occurred in Belgium between November 1989
and June 1990 have given us an impressive body of new data. We
have even been able to study in detail material from both
military and civilian ground radar screens. Moreover, an in-depth
examination of on-board radar data from one of the F-16s sent up
by the Belgian Air Force during the night of March 30-31, 1990,
is currently under way. As far as I know, this is the first such
opportunity in the world, but much remains to be done. I shall
therefore only give an overview of this research. I shall outline
what we are doing and briefly describe our methods.
I shall ALSO include some remarks on the unwarranted
generalizations that are still too frequently encountered (from
skeptics) and on the reactions of eyewitnesses in the current
socio-psychological climate in Europea UFOlogy. Finally, I shall
present a few reports of sightings made in Belgium and abroad.
One case in particular, the enormous lozenge-shaped object that
flew over the outskirts of the town of Eupen on December 1, 1989,
is representative of the quality and importance of the new
information. In assessing reports it is important to be aware of
what has been happening in other countries, so I shall include a
few foreign cases that suggest the wave of sightings may not be
over.


Ground investigations

At the beginning of December 1989 I joined the SOBEPS
(Societe Belge d'Etude des Phenomenes Spatiaux) investigation. It
was vital to familiarize myself personally with the number and
quality of the eyewitness reports. I concentrated almost
exclusively on the Eupen region, of which I am a native. I hoped
that my fluency in German and my profession as a physicist would
help loosen people's tongues. I have noted that many
eyewitnesses, and particularly the most reliable ones with
important social responsibilities, are reluctant to discuss what
they have seen because of irrational socio-psychological
pressures.

The evening of November 29, 1989, was decisive, because two
Eupen police officers had the courage to describe on television
the UFO they had painstakingly observed. There were several other
sightings that same day. I shall be compiling a list of them in
the book that SOBEPS is planning to publish. I have discovered a
series of eyewitness accounts that form a coherent sequence in
time and space that day. The sightings made by Mr. J (more on
which later) provide one example of what can be learned from
these witnesses. In my opinion, data of these kinds, when taken
together with the whole body of sightings worldwide, pose a
challenge to the scientific community and to every thoughtful
person.

Journalists have had an especially important role. Some of
them have performed their work conscientiously, but others were
simply seeking sensational stories. Yet more felt obliged to lead
a personal crusade against the gathering of eyewitness reports. I
will cite just one example whose immediate effects I observed.

A few days after December 18, 1989, a gendarme in the Eupen
area refused to tell me what he had seen, probably because on
that date a local daily paper had published an article which
asserted that the "most plausible explanation" for UFO sightings
was that the U. S. Air Force was secretly testing F-117A planes
over Belgium. This article was preceded by the impressive
headline "Explanation from Washington," and the subheading
referred to a "hysteria" of UFO sightings. I was sent a copy of
this paper the same day and immediately inquired into the matter,
since these stories ALSO form an aspect of the UFO phenomenon.
It turned out that the "explanation" was only speculation,
put forward by the Flemish paper Het Laatste Nieuws. I phoned the
journalist who wrote the article that triggered off a rumor which
is still causing much ink to be spilt. He explained that he had
just read an article on the F-117A and wished to pass on such
information to his readers. To make his article more interesting,
he had suggested (gratuitously, with no reference to the actual
sightings) that there might be a possible connection with recent
sightings in Belgium. In the meantime, I had learned from Lt.
Col. De Brouwer, Chief of Operations of the Belgian Air Force,
that the Air Force had sought information from the American
Embassy to help them explain the reports. This should not have
been necessary if the sightings were caused by secret exercises,
as De Brouwer routinely would have been informed of any such
overflights. Instead, he took the trouble to secure accurate
information about what the many Belgian eyewitnesses had really
seen.

Learning that an official American disclaimer was to be
published, I telephoned the Eupen journalist to tell him the news
and to ask him to publish a correction as soon as possible. When
I asked him why he had spoken of "an explanation from Washington"
and characterized the eyewitness accounts of local people as
"hysterical " he responded, "I am against all that." I appreciate
his candor, but that does not square with the regard for
objectivity one expects of journalists. Such attitudes constitute
disinformation and serve to dissuade eyewitnesses; they make the
search for truth more difficult.

The search for more objective information
Having convinced myself of the reality and importance of the
wave of UFO sightings in our country, I concluded that it would
have been scientifically irresponsible to ignore this wave
without trying to find out what had turned up on our country's
radar screens. I did not know how to gain access to the data, but
I felt that reason would eventually prevail. Since early December
1989 I had been in contact with Lt. Col. De Brouwer at the
Headquarters of the Belgian Air Force, requesting that any radar
documentation be preserved for a thorough scientific study.
Shortly afterwards I sent a similar written request to Guy Coeme,
Minister of National Defense.


I ALSO met the head of the air traffic control at Zaventem,
the Brussels airport. I learned that he and his associates
preserve recordings of radar data for several weeks on magnetic
tape in the event of any inquiries relating to air safety. I
therefore addressed a written request to Mr. Vandenbroucke, the
General Manager of the Airlines Administration, for permission to
videotape certain excerpts. These would be restricted to
sequences selected on the basis of the number of fairly close-
range and reliable UFO sightings. The goal was to verify whether
there had been any suspicious radar traces before or after the
sighting times, given that the UFOs were doubtless below the
radar coverage at the time of very low-altitude sightings.

Although the response was delayed, a call to Vanenbroucke
brought immediate cooperation. I convey my warm thanks to him and
to the Chief Engineer and the technical radar personnel of our
national airport for their effective support, which proved
useful. In consequence I have been able to film and analyze more
than 180 hours of data from the Bertem radar installation, which
serves Zaventem airport. In brief, two surprising and significant
discoveries emerged from this material. I shall describe them
later. One of these discoveries concerned the fact that echoes of
unidentified origin often moved along linear trajectories of
limited length. This perplexed me. I continued to collect as many
data as possible, refusing to adopt any particular hypothesis.

Furthermore, it was vital to analyze these data quickly so that I
could assimilate their essential characteristics and determine
what was worth studying more closely. In fact, I was involved in
a race against time, since the magnetic tapes were retained only
for a few weeks. Any potentially important material that I failed
to save would be lost forever.

I ALSO hoped to gain access to the military radar
documentation, although I knew this would be more difficult. An
increasingly close and productive collaboration had developed

with Lt. Col. De Brouwer and with Lt. Col. Billen, Chief of the
Glons radar installation. They shared my profound conviction that
an in-depth study was required, both to understand better the UFO
phenomenon and to elucidate the mysterious phenomenon that I had
discovered, probably of atmospheric origin.

During this stage of the investigation an important event
occurred. I knew that the Belgian Air Force planned to scramble
F-16 fighters in cases where UFO sightings were reported by
reliable eyewitnesses with additional confirmation by other
evidence. These conditions seemed to have been met during the
night of March 30-31, 1990. Although I was notified at an early
stage, I had to wait for the Air Force's preliminary evaluation
of the data before learning anything more.

For my part, I kept Lt. Col. De Brouwer informed about my
research on the data from the Bertem radar. He saw the benefit of
checking these data against those from the military radar at
Semmerzake. I was accordingly authorized to go there and obtain
extracts from these tapes. The information regarding the events
of the night of March 30-31 remained inaccessible since an Air
Force investigation was underway, but we were making progress all
the same.

The Semmerzake data were more accurate and detailed
than those I already had.
Consequently, I was able to compare the data from the
Semmerzake military radar with those from the Bertem civil radar,
whose echoes are instantaneously transmitted to Semmerzake. They
are subject to even less filtering than on the air
controllers' screens at Zaventem airport. I could thus establish
the coordinates and other characteristics of each individual
echo. The analysis was laborious but made it possible to
decisively confirm the preliminary conclusions drawn from the
video films taken at Zaventem.

After the release of the Air Force report in the summer of
1990, there were irrational reactions on the part of some French
media. Lt. Col. De Brouwer responded by supplying more
information, hoping to demonstrate that the situation was more
complex and better documented than many supposed, and that it
merited further analysis. He resolutely followed an open-minded
policy. Some journalists had labeled the military "The Great
Mute"; by contrast, Lt. Col. De Brouwer maintained that "we have
nothing to hide in this matter." I can attest to his deep honesty
and courage.

After talking with a reporter from Paris Match (July 5,
1990, issue), De Brouwer ALSO allowed some members of SOBEPS to
see an extract from the video film of the on-board radar from one
of the F-16s. The series of photos we were authorized to take
enabled me to make a preliminary assessment, and I realized then
the extremely strange nature of these data. Having made
considerable headway in interpreting some of the initial radar
data, 1 could see that the same explanation would not work for
these astonishing observations.

In order to go further, I needed the express permission of
the Minister of National Defense. Since my written request had
met with no response, probably because of bureaucratic inertia, I
decided to telephone the Minister, Guy Coeme. His response was
almost immediate: "I believe in openness." This was, I think, a
historic attitude. In any event, it was an exemplary action, from
which other countries will soon, I hope, draw inspiration.

After this everything went like clockwork, albeit one whose
hands moved slowly. For instance, I received the data from the
Glons radar for the main events of March 30-31, 1990, on November
2, fully seven months later. The appropriate permissions had all
been granted, but other military missions (in particular, the
Gulf crisis and the intervention in Rwanda) took precedence
compared to UFO investigations. Still, there can be a real
advantage to letting ideas settle for a while. At present
thorough studies are being undertaken in complete collaboration
with an officer-engineer of the Belgian Air Force. I do not wish
to name him so as to prevent him from being besieged with
inquiries. The conclusions of our study will be published but
only when this can be done in a responsible manner.

The fundamental results

Almost continually, radar screens show sporadic echoes not
correlated with aircraft. Radar operators call these echoes
"angels"as if they were pure spirits. For them the echoes
constitute annoying "noise" and are ignored as much as possible.
A priori they could just as easily be UFOs as natural phenomena.
They appear only occasionally, all over the screen. An air
traffic controller cannot afford to waste time and attention on
them. When I systematically recorded the positions in which these
"angels" appeared, however, I noted that they often moved in
practically straight lines. I have labeled this the "flying
angels effect."

The average speed of this movement is low relative to that of
aircraft (about 50 km//h). There are random fluctuations, but the
mean speed is well-defined. The lines of motion are of limited
length, and their direction of motion is not correlated with the
wind. Furthermore they can appear (perhaps even more often) when
the sky is clear. The Semmerzake radar could locate the physical
position of the radar returns. As the data accumulated, it became
evident that this phenomenon could not involve UFOs. It had to be
an atmospheric problem, albeit a fairly special one, since the
radar operators whom I consulted had not noticed this effect. A
comprehensive survey of the literature indicated that this
phenomenon had not been described either. I have finally
discovered an explanation based on known physical principles and
on some independent data. It will be described elsewhere when I
have had time to verify it further. The "flying angels effect" is
undoubtedly of atmospheric origin.

My second main finding was that I found no reliable traces
associated with eyewitness accounts of UFO sightings, even when I
examined the traces over a wide range of times and places. I
knew, however, that there had been previous cases of radar
detection of UFOs. The evidence in these cases seems to be
acceptable (and cannot be explained by the "flying angels"
phenomenon). Given the lack of radar confirmation in Belgium, it
would be easy to put forward one or the other of these two
simplistic hypotheses: either the witnesses saw nothing of a
material nature, or F-117 Stealth aircraft were involved. But
neither one nor the other hypothesis takes into account the whole
range of what was observed. The UFOs sighted in Belgium were
usually described as platforms, either stationary or moving
horizontally. This is sufficient to explain the low probability
of detection by ground radars. The radar beams would be reflected
back as if by a horizontal mirror. The same technique is used for
the F-117A Stealth plane.

On several occasions the UFOs had been described as having a
vertical edge and a dome on top. Seen laterally or from above, as
from an aircraft, radar detection might therefore be easier. So
an F-16 might possibly detect a UFO of this kind, if the surfaces
were not made of radar-absorbent material. This presents new
questions, since if UFOs are extraterrestrial, why are their
shapes now different from previously reported objects? Could they
have adapted their craft's shape in order to evade our detection
systems, or is it just a coincidence, resulting from the fact
that this batch of visitors come from somewhere else?
As for the data from the F-16 on-board radar, which operates
differently from ground radars and can record different kinds of
data, I can only say, for the time being, that they are
astonishing. In particular, there are abrupt changes in speed as
well as other strange features. This calls for a technical, far-
reaching, and careful study. We have made a start. I don't know
what conclusion we will reach, nor when we shall reach it.
 

The views of Science & Vie

With a few rare exceptions, the French media's coverage of
the Belgia UFO sightings has not been distinguished by its
objectivity. Some writers did not hesitate to quite openly make
fun of the "little Belgians" and their "tales " but we shall see
who laughs last. What surprised me most was the fact that the
magazine Science & Vie (Science & Life) had launched a sort of
anti-UFO crusade. I have often admired this magazine's articles
of scientific popularization. It has, in the past, taken a clear
responsibility for public's scientific education. It is all the
more deplorable, then, that in this area it traffics in
irrational, unscientific polemics. The only advantage may be to
document the fact for future generations that at the end of the
20th Century people reacted in this fashion, in spite of the
lessons that they could have drawn from the history of science.

When there is a conflict between a new kind of fact and the
established conceptual framework, people tend to hang on to
preconceived ideas. What does not fit in with the theories that
are regarded as unshakable is filtered out or repressed. People
refuse to face reality. So far as UFOs are concerned, the method
consists of selecting some facts that can be explained, it is
thought, in a conventional manner. Then it is believed that this
result can be extrapolated, without any effort's being made to
examine the rest of the data. This leads to what can be termed
unwarranted generalizations.
In its January 1990 issue (No. 868), Science & Vie showed no
hesitation in discrediting all the Belgian eyewitnesses on the
basis of just one photograph. This photo, taken near Eupen,
showed a big luminous dot. The photographers submitted the photo
to SOBEPS, along with several others from the same event. Even
though the photo had little to do with the many eyewitness
sightings, it could have been given an detailed analysis.
Instead, the editorial team of Science & Vie preferred an
unsupported interpretation, strongly suggesting that all
eyewitness reports smacked of "poetry" or optical illusions.

In the June issue (No. 813) the magazine provided information
about the F-I 17A Stealth aircraft. This sort of information had
just been made public by the U.S. Air Force. The title of the
article-"The UFO: This Is It," showing an example of an F- 117A-
speaks volumes about the magazine's commercial rather than
scientific intentions. Again, it insinuated that all the
witnesses must have been mistaken, like the Belgian Air Force.
The author of this article and everyone involved clearly felt no
need to conduct on-the-spot inquiries in order to obtain more
information and acquire an objective view of the facts.

The October issue (No. 877) of Science & Vie announced on its

first page that it was "on the track of the Belgia UFOs." In
fact, the author was concerned only with the events of March 30-
31, 1990, and the involvement of the Belgian Air Force.
Apparently he felt that this constituted the core of the matter,
and that by debunking it he could dispose of the whole story. He
considered only the initial reports, which contained raw,
unanalyzed information. The author of the article is intelligent
and able, but his method resembled more that of a lawyer
defending a specific brief than that of a scientist representing
the quest for truth. After the press conference given by Lt. Col.
De Brouwer, the F-I 17A hypothesis had been discredited, but that
need be no obstacle; plenty of other hypotheses can be
constructed.

Why not suggest the existence of another secret plane, with
all the capabilities necessary to explain the apparent paradoxes?
Perhaps the U.S. Air Force was testing this secret plane over
Belgium without notifying the Belgian Air Force -a friendly
nation which uses American F- 16s. Does this seem practical or
likely? Consider that testing new planes inevitably involves the
risk of an accident or crash, in which case the Belgian
authorities would have to be notiFied to help protect essential
secrets.
Why not suggest that the Belgian police were so unaccustomed
to seeing stars that they got all confused at the sight of some?
Or, above all, that there is no supporting evidence to back up
any of the Belgian sightings, even though there were more than a
thousand reports and they went on for more than six months?
Following this line of reasoning, everything is for the best
in the "best of all possible worlds" in which profounder
questions must not be asked.

On the contrary, it seems to me that it's always a good idea
to be guided by the Facts, especially when they are unexpected.

What thousands of witnesses have seen for many years throughout
the world deserves serious study. I am not advocating a specific
hypothesis, only asking people to open their eyes.

The witnesses' reactions
Witnesses' reactions are diverse, as might be expected. In
most cases people simply relate what has happened in a factual
manner, being explicit about what they have been able to observe
and confessing their perplexity. What now seems to me to be new
and significant is that many witnesses are annoyed at not being
taken seriously.

As regards the socio-psychological hypothesis, which explains
UFO sightings by the desire to make contact with extraterrestrial
beings, I do not believe that this is compatible with my
experiences interviewing a fairly sizable number of witnesses.
Naturally there are pathological and even psychiatric cases, but
let us again refrain from unwarranted extrapolations. I have
noted, like other investigators, that at the outset of their
strange sightings, witnesses practically always try to find a
conventional explanation; as they take in more details, though,
the conventional explanation no longer suffices. This reaction
violates a basic assumption of some "socio-psychologists."
It is true that witnesses are quicker to think of a UFO after
the media have told them other people have seen them, and they
report sightings more readily once they know that organizations
are studying UFO reports seriously. Some people have
intentionally scanned the skies, but they have not necessarily
seen anything.

It is absolutely normal for someone to filter and analyze
sensory data on the basis of pre-existing conceptual models. What
happens when there is a discrepancy? Some witnesses describe
extraordinary events, repeating that they do not believe in UFOs.
Perhaps they're trying to reassure themselves, perhaps they're
afraid of seeming insane to the interviewers. On several
occasions I have met witnesses who, although accepting the ET
hypothesis, are visibly upset about these "intruders." Humanity
could be defenseless and dependent on the goodwill of an unknown,
technologically very superior, external power. I have met only
one witness who told me in a confiding manner: "I should very
much like to meet them." He said this spontaneously when I asked
him what he thought of his sighting.

Reality is far less clear-cut than the supporters of the
socio-psychological hypothesis imagine. The collective
unconscious does not, for the most part, desire contact with
extraterrestrials. We cannot assume we are dealing with religious
beliefs, either. On the contrary, it is clear that a fairly

sizable number of witnesses have no wish at all to communicate
what they have observed. We know this because of the cases
discovered entirely by chance and long after the fact. The 1989-
90 Belgian wave encouraged a number of people to tell
investigators about much earlier sightings. One man wrote to me
describing a sighting made during the mobilization before World
War II, when he was all alone on a road. He was so excited and
frightened by the experience that he told no one except his wife.

A member of an embassy told me of a sighting made aboard an
aircraft with many other people. Afterwards, he asked me not to
say anything about it to the other embassy personnel, saying,

"They'll think me crazy."

The fact that the UFOs reported here are generally of a
different type from the traditional "saucer" is ALSO significant.
If the witnesses had invented their accounts, they would probably
have tried to make them seem more believable by corresponding to
the standard model. This is not what happened. One new feature is
that the Belgia UFOs travel over cities at very low altitudes.

Moreover, there were no marked electromagnetic disturbances, as
has often been reported in the past. These differences are worth
considering with a view to understanding the technology rather
than simply assuming that the witnesses can't relate accurately
what they've seen.

An enormous lozenge at Eupen

Mr. J observed the same type of object twice. I heard of his
sightings indirectly, and when I telephoned him, he firmly
insisted on anonymity: "I don't want anyone to tell my children
that their father was out of his mind." He told me that the
machine he had seen was "incredibly large." This assessment was
based on his first sighting, which was on December 1, 1989. I
visited him on January 15, five days after his second sighting.

He is an amateur photographer and described the UFO with the
precision of a careful observer.

On the evening of December 1, he was going to take his wife to
a private exhibition organized by his club. At around 5 p.m. two
of his five children, aged 14 and 15, had already told him about
"strange planes in the sky." After school they had been playing
on the street with a Moroccan boy who lived in one of the
neighboring houses. It was already growing dark and one of the
children said, "They're UFOs," using the German word for UFO. Mr.
J had replied, "Of course not, they must be planes."

At 6:50 Mr. J was ready to leave. He was sitting in the
living room in his usual chair near a window that looks out on a
terrace at the rear. At that moment one of his children came
rushing up all excited, saying, "Look, they're here again!"
Struck by his child's insistence, Mr. J rose and went out onto
the terrace. This forms, together with the garden, a large L-
shaped open space behind a cluster of houses. Mr. J saw the young
Moroccan, who was at the back garden of his house, in the other
branch of L, pointing at the sky and stating, "See, one's just
coming." Mr. J told me, "I don't understand how this boy could
say that so calmly, as if it was a commonplace remark, because I
almost fell over backwards when I looked up. I tell you that if
you have not seen one, you cannot believe it. It was enormous."
Mr. J then spontaneously set about drawing the object, which
was lozenge-shaped, with two white lights at each corner and, in
the center, a kind of illuminated bell projecting from the
platform (figure 1). The surface of the object was dark but
clearly visible against the brighter sky. It had been a sunny
day, and the sky was perfectly clear. Stars were visible around
the object. It glided slowly from southwest to northeast, without
the slightest sound. It could be followed at a comfortable
walking pace. The large diagonal of the lozenge was perpendicular
to the direction of movement and was at least 35 meters long.

During my visit Mr. J went onto the terrace to show me his
reference marks. The nearest end of the large diagonal had been
directly above his house and the other end had passed above a
large building 350 meters away. He was unable to determine the
altitude of the object, but he noticed that he could see the sky
between the object and the building opposite. As a result he felt
that the object could have been even larger than the distance
between his house and the building.

A little later on, Mr. J reported that the white lights
flashed off and on regularly. I asked him whether they did this
at the same time. He replied, "I don't know. I couldn't see the
four corners simultaneously. I had to crane my neck." These
lights were circular and large. "The most extraordinary thing
about them was their power," he said. They illuminated the ground
with a white light. In the center of the lozenge was an "inverted
bell" which was wholly illuminated by an orange light. At the
bell's apex was a green light, darker than green traffic lights.
The skirt of the bell was surrounded by a row of red lights,
changing brightness sequentially. This gave a false impression of
revolving lights. "These lights never completely went out, but
they grew distinctly brighter at certain moments."
The lights did not illuminate the underside of the object,
which remained dark. The red lights "chased each other" with a
slow, comfortable movement. "It wasn't an alarming flash, like
that from an ambulance or police car. It was even pleasant to
watch." Mr. J ALSO remembered that "the luminous bell was
strange, because you couldn't tell whether the light came from
its interior or the surface." Since the witness was an amateur
photographer, he considered going to find his camera but realized
it was too big to capture adequately. Knowing that he had 100 ASA
film loaded, he gauged that the mass of the object, which was
almost black, would not be made out on film since the white
lights were too dazzling.

He did what he could. "I tried to remember as much as
possible. I ALSO called my wife and daughter so that someone from
my family could see it." Mrs. J did not see the object. She heard
her husband but was in the bath. His daughter arrived after the
object was already some way off, having passed over the roofs of
the houses. Mr. J went with her to the front, where they stayed
long enough to see the object leave, still at a fairly slow
speed, passing over the Eupen cemetery.

Mr. J bitterly regrets not having taken photos. Since then
he has been to Aix-la-Chapelle to buy infrared film, which he
keeps in the refrigerator. The young Moroccan came over while Mr.
J was drawing his picture for me. He said, unasked, "Yes, it's
like that." The vertical edge (on figure 1) was not visible on
December 1. Mr. J drew it based on his second sighting.
This second sighting took place on Wednesday, January 10,
1990, at about 1:35 p.m. It was dark. The witness, on his way to
a photo club, had taken the E5 highway after reaching the
Herbesthal road and was proceeding inland. He had gone only a few
kilometers when he saw a stationary object in the sky. It was
exactly "the same model." Mr. J stopped his car on the side of
the road. Other drivers seemed not to notice anything. Mr. J
leaned on the hood of his car, watching the object with arms
crossed. Everything was identical to the first sighting, but on
this occasion the lozenge was oriented sideways, and he could see
it had a constant and considerable height. It was about 500
meters away. Its lights seemed less bright this time, perhaps
because of the highway illumination.
Mr. J was exasperated that he hadn't brought his camera.
There would probably be no point in returning home. After 10-15
minutes the object started to move off toward Fagnes. It left
slowly and silently. Just as it was departing the luminosity
increased. "It was as though the voltage of the lights had been
intensified as it moved gently away."

It may seem strange that Mr. J saw the same object twice. It
should, however, not be forgotten that the events of December 1
had been deeply etched in his memory; as a consequence, his
mental "filters" would have been adjusted in such a way that he
would more easily notice a similar object in the sky at night. I
have no reason to doubt this eyewitness report. His sincerity and
spontaneity were evident. The witness had spoken with only a few
people and had learned to be cautious. "I have seen many things
in my life," he said, "but when I talk about this, people look at
me oddly."

A UFO flies over Aix-la-Chapelle

On December 5 or 12, 1989, Mr. and Mrs. O were driving
northward on the Triererstrasse in the town of Aix-la-Chapelle.
It was about 9:50 p.m. when they suddenly saw a flying object cut
across the road right in front of them. It moved steadily to the
right. It had two headlights in front, emitting beams that
slanted downwards. The light was white and intense without being
blinding. In addition, there was an orange light on the
underside, Dashing at the same rate as an ambulance's lights. Mr.
O was driving and had to pay attention to traffic, but Mrs. O
continued to observe what they still thought was an aircraft
flying exceptionally low. She kept it constantly in sight. When
it had crossed the road, it extinguished its headlights, but the
flashing orange light remained illuminated. This made it possible
to see that the object was describing a half-turn on a tight
curve, heading back in the opposite direction.
Mrs. O first saw it through the front right-hand window. Then
she turned around to look at it through the back rear window. The
object approached again, passed over the car, and reappeared in
the front left-hand window. It had cut across the road
diagonally. At a certain distance from the car, its headlights
came on again. Since the headlights were at the front of the
object, they could no longer be seen directly, but the beams that
they emitted were visible. Unlike an aircraft, there were no rear
lights or flashing red and green side-lights. All that could be
seen was the flashing orange light, which became fainter and
fainter as the craft went away.

Mr. and Mrs. O returned to their home, near Aix-la-Chapelle.
That same evening, at 11:15 p.m., Mr. O stepped outside to let
the dog out and noticed exactly the same object. It was flying
above their street, in the direction of Stollberg. Mr. O
immediately called his wife. The headlight beams were less angled
than they had been before, but the machine was flying lower. Its
motion was linear and uniform, with a speed about that of a
helicopter, but to the great astonishment of the witnesses it
made no sound. Mrs. O was insistent about the absence of noise,
for conditions were such that she and her husband ought to have
heard it had the craft been equipped with a motor.
I asked them later about the apparent size of the object,
suggesting that a thumb held at arm's length might cover it. The
immediate response was, "No, it would have required a whole
hand." The sighting occurred fairly late, so the sky was dark.
The object stood out clearly against it, because it was somewhat
brighter. The witnesses saw an elongated shape, less high than
long, with curved edges. The outlines were different from those
of an aircraft or helicopter. The hypothesis of night gliders or
ultralights is not very credible, particularly in the case of the
first sighting.

The next day a police car passed down the street,
its loud-speaker requesting those who had seen "anything
abnormal" to report it to them. Mr. and Mrs. O did not do so.
Were there other witnesses? They do not know, because they don't
read the local paper. Mr. O, who is Japanese, subscribes to a
Cologne daily paper and the Financial Times.
I was alerted to this case by Mrs. O's sister, who lives in
Eupen. The German police habitually ridicule UFO witnesses, so it
is not surprising that Mr. and Mrs. O didn't want to report their
sighting. I ALSO conducted an inquiry into a close encounter
involving two German families living in Lontzen, in Belgium on
November 29. The children involved were frightened, so one of the
mothers called various places, including the Aix-la-Chapelle
police. She told me that they laughed at her and that their
derisive response had shocked her.

A triangular UFO at Coblenz

The following case was described in the July-August 1990
issue of the Journal fur UFO-Forschung (Journal for UFO Research)
of the GEP group (Society for the Investigation of the UFO
phenomenon), based in Ludencheid, Germany. The investigation was
carried out by W. Kelch. This case is interesting in itself,
since it involves the sighting of a triangle in another country,
but it ALSO has interesting psychological aspects. The principal
witness, a 33-year-old woman, works at a military base and seems
to have a solid character.

The sighting took place on the evening of February 21, 1990,
at 9:07 p.m., in Karthause, near Coblenz. The lady was returning
home by car, accompanied by her mother (aged 69) and her son
(aged 14), who had been to a judo lesson. They were driving
through an attractive residential district on a fairly wide road.
To the right was a continuous line of trees 15-18 meters in
height, bordering a cemetery. The left-hand side of the road was
fringed with houses 20-25 meters high on a small hill. Through
traffic is virtually nil and, at this late stage of the evening,
there was no residential traffic. In fact, no car went by during
the episode. The weather was cool and it was dark. The sky was
clear.

The mother was the first to see two lights beaming straight
down at them at a 45-degree angle (figure 2a). The object bearing
these lights slowed down, but the driver, fearing it might crash,
pulled to the right side of the road. There she stopped, with the
car at an angle. The object stopped above the road, almost
directly overhead. The driver switched off the engine, lowered
the window and looked out. She saw a large triangular object,
absolutely stationary and noiseless, at rooftop height. From
other reference points it was possible to determine that the
sides of the triangle measured about 20 meters (figure 2b). The
witnesses watched the object closely, but no one dared get out of
the car.

Three milky, yellowish-white lights were at the corners of
the triangle. They were bright but not blinding. In the center of
the triangle was a much larger light. Its color was changing but
the prevailing hue was grey-blue. These changes seemed to imply
something revolving, reminding the witnesses of the mirror-globes
in discos. The witnesses said that "this light shone in a strange
way." They saw only the lower side of the triangular platform.
The object had a metallic appearance. It was dark-gray and
colorless, with solid and sharp outlines The base was slightly
illuminated by the lights on the object, allowing the witnesses
to observe structures which they described as riveted plates.

The object stayed overhead for two or three minutes then
departed suddenly in the direction of the houses. The driver of
the car felt a breeze through her rolled-down window. The object
accelerated and disappeared from view in less than a second,
behind the roofs of the houses. It had arrived from the west, but
departed towards the southwest. Its departure was much faster

than that of a jet aircraft.

Audio-console does not work ? please install WindowsMedia Player 9 - www.windowsmedia.com/downloads

Marcel Hulspas + Drs. Molewijk (Skepsis)

Rinus Nienhuis - John Kuhles  - NATO General De Brouwer

The witnesses the went home, and the woman immediately
informed her husband, who was on nightshift. At first he was
unwilling to believe her story but finally, at her insistence,
called the local police. Although the police had not received any
other calls, they agreed to send a police squad to the area. Her
husband ALSO called the air-traffic sections at the Frankfurt and
Cologne-Wahn airports. They responded that radar detection was
not possible at so low an altitude. The three witnesses were
unable to sleep that night. The mother, feeling afraid, stayed in
her daughter's apartment.

Later on the wife tried to clear up the mystery on her own
initiative. She found the address and telephone numbers of the
GEP, who sent her a questionnaire which she completed and
returned by mail. She succeeded in locating two other witnesses.
Between 8:30 and 8:50 that same evening, a lady saw "something
bright heading quite rapidly towards my car," near the
intersection of the A61 and A48 highways. Frightened, she braked.
Through the sunroof she saw a bus-shaped metallic object with
fairly bright, bluish lights. The object went by noiselessly,
disappearing finally in the dark. A UFO was ALSO seen by a 30-
year-old man, just before 9:07 p.m., near the same spot. When
questioned, however, he distanced himself from the incident,
saying, "Nobody's going to believe me anyway."
When the GEP investigator contacted the police, they asserted
that they could not recall having received any telephone calls
about UFOs and that they knew nothing of the matter. The lady and
her husband were annoyed by this denial. The investigator had the
impression that the wife was a down-to-earth sort of individual.
He found no discrepancy between her account and the questionnaire
she had completed. So far as the witness was concerned, she had
seen an unidentified flying object.

The GEP tried to find a conventional explanation. A balloon
was ruled out because there had been a light east wind and the
object was first seen moving west to east. And how could it have
turned around and left so fast? The police use BO-105 helicopters
to patrol the highways for trucks, but this too was ruled out.
Could it have been a military plane? There is in actual fact a
military exercise ground (Schmitenhohe) two kilometers away,
where German and NATO forces run nocturnal infrared
reconnaissance flights and other exercises. But that night there
had been no exercises.

In Germany a CH-47 Chinook helicopter is often suggested as
an explanation for UFO reports. Such aircraft are used between
Mendig and Mainz, but the flights take place almost exclusively
during the day at a height of 800-1000 meters. Taken as a whole,
the evidence in this case renders that explanation unlikely.
Nevertheless, the investigator thought it necessary to consider
the possibility that the three witnesses were in shock and had
perhaps not heard the noise, having been paralyzed by fear. The
investigator thus concluded noncommittally that "the available
data do not allow us to make an unambiguous identification as a
known flying object." You can make what you like about this
statement. Who is frightened? The witnesses by a somewhat
hypothetical helicopter, or the investigator by social and
psychological pressures?

A recent sighting in Switzerland
This event occurred on Sunday, October 14, 1990. The Swiss
sighting was relayed to me by the witness, Mrs. Wengere, who has
authorized me to cite her name. She telephoned me from
Switzerland and confirmed her account in writing. An editor by
profession, she was clearly looking for people who would listen
seriously to such reports. She wrote to a Zurich paper and
personally collected various recent eyewitness reports a copy of
which she sent me.

On the evening of October 14 she and her husband were on
their way to a hospital to visit a friend. It was about 7 p.m.,
already dark, with stars easily visible. The sky was clear and
there was no wind. They were driving from Lostdorf, near Olten,
toward Zurich. Mrs. Wengere spotted two bright white lights.
They were motionless, a little to the left ahead of them, over a
range of mountains. The couple could not see light beams but only
two large, luminous, perfectly round disks, surrounded by a light
atmospheric halo. The left-hand light was higher than the right.
Mrs. Wengere at first thought the lights must be on
transmission towers on the mountaintops, although they would have
to have been erected recently since she had never seen them
before. There was still enough light in the sky for her to
observe that there was nothing between the lights and the range
of mountains. She thus deduced that the lights had to be
supported by one or two flying objects whose shape was not
discernible. She told her husband, "There's a UFO over there! "
She asked him to stop. He saw the lights and could not
explain them either, but he didn't stop because there was no
parking space along the road and it would have been dangerous to
stop in the dark. The bright lights must have been of excessive
dimensions since the stars appeared minuscule and pale in
comparison, as did the lights of an approaching aircraft. There
was one approaching the UFO (figure 3a) at that very moment. If
the lights were at the same distance as the plane, each of them
ought to have been almost as large as the plane itself. Mrs.

Wengere expected the object to react to the plane, but at that
moment she and her husband were passing a village and lost sight
of the object. They even had to wait for a red traffic light.
When they once more had a clear view, the lights had
disappeared. Mrs. Wengere was annoyed that her husband had not
stopped when she had asked him to. He exclaimed, "Look, there
they are again! " The lights were hanging a little higher in the
sky, above the mountains to the right of the road. The new
position and the previous location formed an angle of about 100
degrees. Since the witnesses had not observed the shift, this
could have been another object entirely. In fact, they now noted
a third light, identical to the first two, a little to the left
of the others. It was separated from them by a distance almost 10
times as large as the distance between the other two lights,
which were still stationary.

The third light was at first motionless, but after some time
it shifted slowly towards the others with a linear uniform speed.
It stopped after having covered two-thirds of the distance that
separated it from them (figure 3b). The other two lights began to
move together, as if they were joined, their diagonal alignment
becoming horizontal. The pair became smaller and less intense,
but at the same time two chains of red and green lights appeared
joining the two. The distance between them grew greater and
eventually the two lights disappeared, leaving only the red and
green crown of light visible.
The third light ALSO changed during this time it became
fainter and acquired its own oval crown of small red and green
lights. The vertical axis of the ellipse thus formed grew
gradually longer, but the second crown was smaller than the first.

The two witnesses thought that the chains of light
were fixed to the sides of objects that were changing their tilt,
but neither of them could actually see the objects. Followed by
other vehicles, they continued to drive on. Mr. Wengere had
slowed down only slightly. The lights were lost once again behind
some houses, this time for good.

The Wengeres were already aware of the UFO phenomenon as a
result of a previous sighting. On July 20, 1989, at about 6:50
p.m., they had both been out in their garden. The sun was shining
and the sky was cloudless. Mrs. Wengere noticed an elongated,
silvery object. It moved like an aircraft, but she could see
neither wings nor tail. It was simply cigar-shaped and completely
silent. She pointed it out to her husband, who was equally
surprised. Mrs. Wengere thought it so strange that ten minutes
later she telephoned the air-traffic control at Zurich-Kloten
airport. She learned that there had been no "official flight" at
that time over her home and that nothing abnormal had been
recorded on the radar screens.

Mrs. Wengere was unable to stop thinking about what she had
seen on October 14. She remembered having read about a large
number of sightings of UFOs in Belgium. On October 20 she decided
to telephone the air traffic center at Zurich-Kloten. They had
seen nothing unusual on their radars during the evening of
October 14, and no one else had reported a similar phenomenon.
The man who answered the telephone said, "It must be an optical
illusion due to some sort of reflection." He said this haughtily,
adding that he received many telephone calls of this kind, but
that they were almost always optical illusions. This indicates
that there were other UFO reports, although the explanation he
offered was purely gratuitous.

I note that in the United States a photograph was taken on
May 26, 1988, near Southbury of a beautiful crown of alternating
red, yellow and green lights against a black background. This is
documented by a magnificent slide that I have received from
Philip Imbrogno, co-author of the book Night Siege. This shows
that one must not treat each case in isolation as if it were
unique, but search for correlations as has to be done for any
physical phenomenon. For this reason we must not focus our
attention solely on the events of March 30-31, 1990, whatever
their possible importance may eventually be.
As for the "flying angels effect," which has led to some
notable problems in atmospheric physics and useful knowledge for
radar operators, this discovery was simply a by-product of
rational study of the UFO problem. As such it underlines that it
is worthwhile to look carefully at mysterious phenomena. I expect
that the thoroughness and seriousness of our study of radar
"noise" will help our credibility as we examine other aspects of
the UFO phenomenon.

The following is a report written by the secretarial staff

of the Belgian Air Force staff.

REPORT ON THE OBSERVATION OF UFOs

DURING THE NIGHT OF MARCH 30-31, 1990

1.Introduction

a. This report gives an overall view of the reports from the concerned Air Force units and of the reports from ocular witnesses of the gendarmerie patrols, about the unknown phenomena watched in the air space (hereafter called UFOs), south of the axis Brussels-Tirlemont, during the night of March 30-31,1990.

b. The observations, visual and radar, were of such a nature that the take off of two F-16 of the 1 J Wing has been decided, in order to identify these UFOs.

c. This report has been established by Major Lambrechts, VS/3 Ctl-Met 1.

2. Context.

Since the beginning of December 1989, strange phenomena have been regularly noticed in the Belgian air space. The Air Force has at its disposal several ocular witnesses, most of them having been informed by the gendarmerie. The Air Force radar stations could not confirm, in any case, up to March 30-31, these sightings, and the presence of the UFOs could never be established by the fighters sent in that order. The Air Force staff has been able to produce several hypotheses about the origin of these UFOs. The presence or the testing of B-2 or F-117 A (stealth), RPV (Remotely Piloted Vehicles), ULM (Ultra Light Motorised) and AWACS in the Belgian air space during the facts can be excluded.

The cabinet of the MLV (Ministery of National Defense) has been informed about these discoveries. In the meantime, the SOBEPS (Societe Belge d'Etude des Phenomenes Spatiaux) got in touch with the MLV, in order that the MLV backed the SOBEPS in its inquiries about this phenomenon.

This request has been accepted, and after that the Air Force has regularly cooperated with this society.

3. Chronological summary of the events during the night of March 30-31,

1990.

Note: local time.

March 30:

23 h 00: The supervisor responsible (MC) for the Glons CRC (Control Reporting Center) receives a phone call from Mr. A. Renkin, gendarmerie

MDL, who certifies to see, from his home at Ramillies, three unusual lights towards Thorembais-Gembloux. These lights are distinctly more intense than stars and planets, they don't move and are located at the apexes of an equilateral triangle. Their color is changing: red, green and yellow.

23 h 05: The Glons CRC asks the Wavre gendarmerie to send a patrol at this place in order to confirm this sighting.

23 h 10: A new call from Mr. Renkin points out a new phenomenon: three other lights move towards the first triangle. One of these lights is far brighter than the others. The Glons CRC observes in the meantime an unidentified radar contact, about 5 km north of the Beauvechain airport. The contacts moves at about 25 knots towards west.

23 h 28: A gendarmerie patrol including, among others, Captain Pinson, is on the premises and confirms Mr. Renkin's sightings. Captain Pinson describes the observed phenomenon as follows: the bright points have the dimension of a big star(*); their color changes continually. The prevailing color is red; then it changes itself in blue, green, yellow and white, but not always in the same order. The lights are very clear, as if they were signals: this enables to distinguish them from stars.

23 h 30 - 23 h 45: The three new lights, in the meantime, have drawn closer to the first observed triangle. In their turn, after a series of erratic moves, they arrange themselves also in triangular formation.

In the mean time, the Glons CRC observes the phenomenon on radar.

23 h 49 - 23 h 59: The Semmerzake TCC/RP (Traffic Center Control/Reporting Post) confirms in its turn to have a clear radar contact at the same position pointed out by the Glons CRC.

23 h 56: After prerequisite coordination with the SOC II, and since all conditions are fulfilled to make the QRA take off, the Glons CRC gives the scramble order to the 1 J Wing.

23 h 45 - 00 h 15: The bright points are still clearly observed from ground. Their respective position does not change. The whole formation seems to move slowly in comparison with the stars. The ocular witnesses on ground notice that the UFOs send from time to time brief and more intense luminous signals. In the mean time, two weaker luminous points are observed towards Eghezee. Those, as the others, have also brief and erratic moves.

March 31:

00 h 05: Two F-16, QRA of J Wing, AL 17 and AL 23, take off.

Between 00 h 07 and 00 h 54, under control of the CRC, on the whole nine interception attempts have been undertaken by the fighters. The planes have had, several times, brief radar contacts on the targets designated by the CRC. In three cases, the pilots managed to lock on the target during a few seconds, which, each time, induced a drastic change in the comportment of the UFOs. In no case, the pilots have had a visual contact with the UFOs.

00 h 13: First lock on the target designated by the CRC. Position: "on the nose" 6 NM (Nautical Miles), 9000 feet, direction: 250. The target speed changes within minimum time from 150 to 970 knots, altitude coming down from 9000 to 5000 feet, then up to 11000 feet, and, shortly after, down to ground level. From this results a "break lock" after some seconds, the pilot losing the radar contact. The Glons radar informs, at the moment of the break lock, that the fighters are above the target position.

+/- 00 h 19 - 00 h 30: The Semmerzake TCC as well as the Glons CRC have lost contact with the target. From time to time a contact appears in the region, but they are too few to have a clear track. In the meantime, the pilots contact on VHF the radio of the civilian air traffic, in order to coordinate their moves with the Brussels TMA.

The radio contact on UHF is maintained with the Glons CRC.

00 h 30: AL 17 has a radar contact at 5000 feet, 20 NM away Beauvechain (Nivelles), position 255. The target moves at very high speed (740 knots). The lock on lasts during 6 seconds, and, at the break lock, the signal of a jamming appears on the scope.

+/- 00 h 30: The ground witnesses see three times the F-16 pass along. During the third pass, they see the planes turning in circles at the center of the great formation initially seen. At the same time, they notice the disappearance of the little triangle, while the brightest, western point of the big triangle moves very fast, probably up. This point emits intense red signals, in a repetitive way, during the manoeuvre. The two other points of the great triangle disappear shortly after. The clear points above Eghezee are no longer visible, and only the western brightest point of the triangle can be observed.

00 h 32: The Glons and Semmerzake radars have a contact at 110 / 6 NM away Beauvechain, which heads for Bierset at 7000 feet and high speed.

The registered speeds go from 478 to 690 knots. The contact is lost above Bierset. The Maastricht radar control center has had no contact with this UFO.

00 h 39 - 00 h 41: The Glons CRC mentions a possible contact at 10 NM from the planes, altitude 10000 feet. The pilots have a radar contact at 7 NM. Again is noticed an acceleration of the target from 100 to 600 knots. The lock on lasts only a few seconds, and the planes as well as the CRC lose the contact.

00 h 47: The Beauvechain RAPCON mentions a contact on its radar, at 6500 feet altitude, position away Beauvechain: 160 / 5 NM. The Glons CRC has also a contact on the same position. This one is observed up to 00 h 56.

00 h 45 - 01 h 00: Some attempts are undertaken in order to intercept the UFOs. The planes register only a few very short radar contacts.

The ground observers see the last UFO disappear towards Louvain-la-Neuve (NNW). Around 01 h 00, the UFO has completely disappeared.

01 h 02: AL 17 and AL 23 quit the frequency of the Glons CRC and go back to their base.

01 h 06: The Jodoigne gendarmerie mentions to the Glons CRC that has just been observed a phenomenon like the one observed by Mr. Renkin at 23 h 15.

01 h 10: Landing of AL 17.

01 h 16: Landing of AL 23.

01 h 18: Captain Pinson, who in the meantime has gone to the Jodoigne gendarmerie, describes his observation as follows: four luminous white points at the apexes of a square, the center of which is Jodoigne. The UFO seen towards Orp-Jauche (SW of Jodoigne) is the brightest and has a yellow-red color. The luminous points move with jerky and short moves.

+/- 01 h 30: The UFOs lose their luminosity and seem to disappear in four distinct directions.

4. General information.

a. Meteo. The data mentioned by the Air Force Wing Meteo regarding the concerned area and during the night of March 30-31, 1990, are the following:

Visibility: 8 to 15 km with clear sky. Wind at 10000 feet: 50/60 knots. A slight temperature inversion at ground, and another, as slight, at 3000 feet. These data are confirmed in Captain Pinson's report. He mentions also that the stars were clearly visible.

b. Because of lack of appropriate material, the ground observers could not make any photo or film of the phenomenon.

c. The UFO observed with a telescope is described as follows: a kind of sphere, a part of which is very luminous; a triangular shape could also be distinguished (For a more detailed observation, see Captain Pinson's report, in appendix H1).

5. Constatations.

a. In contradiction with other pointed out UFO sightings, for the first time a radar contact has been positively observed, in corrrelation with different sensors of the Air Force (CRC, TCC, RAPCON, EBBE and F-16 radar), and this in the same area as visual observations. This has to be explained by the fact that the March 30-31 UFOs have been noticed at +/- 10000 feet altitude, whereas in the former cases there was always talk of visual contacts at very low altitude.

b. The visual evidences, on which this report is partially based, come from gendarmes in duty, whose objectivity cannot be questioned.

c. The UFOs, as soon as seen by the F-16 radar in the "Target Track" mode (after interception), have drastically changed their parameters.

The speeds measured at that time and the altitude shifts exclude the hypothesis according to which planes could be mistaken for the oberved UFOs. The slow moves during the other phases differ also from the moves of planes.

d. The fighter pilots never have had visual contact with the UFOs. This can be explained by the changes of luminous intensity, and even the disappearance of the UFOs, when the F-16 arrived in the neighborhood of the place where they were observed from the ground.

e. 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.

f. The first observation of the slow motion of the UFOs has been made roughly in the same direction and with the same speed as the wind.

The direction differs by 30 degrees from the direction of the wind (260 degrees instead of 230 degrees). The hypothesis of sounding balloons is very improbable. The UFOs altitude during all this phase remained 10000 feet, whereas the sounding balloons go on higher and higher, up to burst at around 100000 feet. It is difficult to explain the bright lights and changes of color with such balloons.

It is very improbable that balloons stay at the same altitude during more than one hour, while keeping the same position between themselves. In Belgium, during the radar observation, there was no meteorological inversion in progress. The hypothesis according to which it could be other balloons must be absolutely dismissed.

g. Though speeds greater than the sound barrier have been measured several times, not any bang has been noticed. Here also, no explanation can be given.

h. Though the different ground witnesses have effectively pointed out eight points in the sky, the radars have registered only one contact at the same time. The points have been seen at a distance one from another sufficient for them to be distinguished by the radars also.

No plausible explanation can be put forward.

i. The hypothesis of air phenomena resulting from projection of holograms(*) must be excluded too: the laser projectors should have been normally observed by the pilots on flight. Moreover, the hologram cannot be detected by radar, and a laser projection can be seen only if there is a screen, like clouds for example. Here, the sky was clear, and there was no significant temperature inversion.

(end of report)

(*)sic

This is the transcript of the exchanges between the pilots and the ground controller during the interception of "UFOs" over Belgium, night 30-31 March 1990 (TIME is GMT).

30/03/90 QRA(I) SCRAMBLE

TIME C P ITEMS TAD 465

2207 C Loud & clear how me

P Reading you 5, flight level 90

C Task VID check armament safe

P Safe

C For your info, contact at your bearing 310 range is 15

P 310, 15, and confirm it's still on FL 90

C checking

220730 P Bravo reading you 5

C Bravo 5 as well. No

C No height on the contact for the moment

P Both levelling off FL 90

C Roger and both starboard 310

P OK, SB 310

C Last altitude on the contact is FL 210

C Keep on turning, roll out 320

P 320

2208 C 320, 17 miles. And for the moment maximum level 10000ft

P Steady 320

C Roger 330, 5 to 10 right range is 15

Possible altitude 10000ft

P Steady at 10000. No contact

2209 C Contact 330 range 10. 11000ft

Starboard 330

P Steady 330

C 330. 5 right range is 9

P No contact keep on taking

C 345 range 7. Reduce speed. Slow moving

P Roger, slow moving

C Still at 10000ft. Bearing 345 range 5

P Confirm altitude

2210 C Last altitude 10000ft. Check 10 left range is 3. Left side 2 miles. No altitude. Passing overhead

P No contact

C Just below you

P Say again

C Just below you now. Both vector 090.Contact is 090 range 2

When steady check 090 range 3. Slow moving.

Inside turn 4 Nm, 060, 3.

P One blinking light just in front of you, do you see it, just below you. An orange one.

C Range is 3, 060, 3.

P ... heading 180. Roger reversing 180 You have contact on me MEEL. Roger contact on you.

If you reverse 180, on your nose 1 mile. It should be 1 o'clock for you.Blinking orange light.It's on the ground P Efflux, you still have the contact.

C Contact for the moment 020, 15

P Confirm 020

C 020, 5 miles

P See the blinking light I mean unreadable....flash

C 030, 6 miles

P Contact on the ground seems to be 1 light

C Another contact now 360, 10 miles

P 360, 10

2213 C Altitude 11000ft, 350, 11 miles

P I have a contact 9000 heading 250 at 970 knots

C Possibly your target

P One contact on the nose 9000ft speed 310

C Range is 6?

P Eddy do you confirm contact

I have the same in B 15 now unreadable

C Contact is at 3 miles now. On the nose 3

P Contact is coming in and out

C Roger and now... 2miles Right inside turn, level 1 mile 2214 Expedite right, roll out 130

P unreadable. 130

C 140 range 3

P Confirm heading efflux

C 130, 120 even. And continue roll out 180 He's now 170,4. Check camera on. 160, 3.

P Camera on I've a possible contact now at 550 knots in C. 6 alt 10000

C Just overhead 2215 If possible take a maximum of pictures.

P May I suggest you keep the HUD, I keep...

C At your 6 o'clock 2

P unreadable

P Efflux, give a new heading

C Roll out 360, 360, 2. unreadable Continue SB 030

P 030

C He's now 050, 3. Altitude 105. Keep on turningtowards 090

P Steady 090

C 090 on the nose 2

P One a/c passing below. Efflux is it possible ?

C At what altitude ?

P I see it efflux

C On the nose 2 miles

P MEEL, you see it, just below me now Efflux you have a new heading

C South, 2

P Say altitude

C FL 105. Snap 130. 130, 3. Last alt. reported 10000ft On the nose 2

P come in attack

C Past the contact now. Altitude is 10000ft

P I'm at 9000ft

C Still no contact?

P " " " ! Heading please

C 270, 2

P Confirm 260 2219

C 270 2220

P Roll out 270. Steady 270. 10000ft

C No more contact for the moment

P MEEL you switch 135 05 go

C Can you contact Brussels on 127.15

P 127.15, go Efflux, confirm new heading 2221

C Keep on turning right 090

P Turning left 090. Efflux steady east now

C Roger, maintain

P Positive contact as well

C For the moment no more contact on the scope 2222

P No contact on the scope as well Check fuel. unreadable Possible contact at 19 miles 800 knots h 350 2223 3000ft // Efflux confirm one contact at 5 miles, left side, speed fast

C No contact for the moment

P 4 miles to the left

C Clear to investigate

P Investigating. Rolling out now 034 2224 Brussels is calling. No contact.

C Traffic approaching from 320 range 15, 9000ft. Possible contact bearing 270 range 12.

Starboard turn 2225

P Turning right 270 This contact seems to be civilian traffic

P Say again Efflux

C Contact is civilian traffic 2226

P Rolling out 277

C Roger, maintain 17 from efflux

P Come in efflux

C Did you see in the previous investigation...

P I had a kind of flashing light on the nose 5 miles

C And this light was coming from the south? 2227

P This light is steady

C When did you pass over the light, give me a top

P Turning left to pass overhead at 10000ft and give you the coordinates Just passing overhead the light

C Roger

P Coordinates : 50.32.08 04.11.08 Reversing east, 10000ft

C Roger

C Possible contact bearing 020 12 miles

P 12 miles looking out

C High speed roll out 040

P 040

C Heading is 115 Starb 060

P One contact on nose 10 miles

C That's the target. No alt on him for the moment

P Contact in C 12 MEEL, at 5000ft. 740 knots Good contact again. Investigating One contact on the nose 7 miles

C Chear to investigate, check armament safe 2231

P Sweet and safe

C Passing overhead BE for the moment

P Lost contact now, he's moving very fast

C That's affirm High speed for the moment

P One contact on the nose 6 miles, speed to 100 knots

C 080, 10 miles. Heading is 120

P 120 confirm

C Affirmative 2232

C Last alt. reported 10000ft 070, 10 miles

P 070, 10 confirm Rolling out 070. Altitude 7000ft Lost contact more info efflux

C Lost contact as well. It should be 090, 10 Roll out 100 2233

P 100

C Normally on the nose range 15 You have contact 2234

P No contact

C 095 Range 18 17, both starboard 310

P SB 310 Fuel 044

C 17 check playtime left

P Playtime left 15 minutes

P 17 steady 310

C Roger 17. Maintain hdg for the moment One civilian traffic 315 range is 12 at 5000ft in the TMA 2238

P Looking out Contact at 6000ft slow moving at C

C It's civilian traffic. Passing 2 o'clock 5 miles 5000ft, check 310, 12 miles possible contact 2239

P 10 miles on the nose 10000ft Contact

C On the nose range 7 2240

P Got the same

C Check camera on 2241

P Camera on

C If possible take max of pictures

P Very slow moving

C Check alt. of contact

P I still have the contact, 5 miles

C No height

P No height

C 3 o'clock 2 miles

P " " "

C Crossing left to right

P Say again

C Left side high

P Looking out. I see one beacon on the nose 2242

C One civilian traffic west, 10 miles

C Contact 100, SB 100

P Roger SB 100

C Civilian traffic 300, 5 miles

P " " " " "Steady 120

C Continue 100

P 100

C Even 060 now 060, 5

P Steady 060

C 060, 3. You have contact?

P One contact but speed is changing from 100 to 600

C I have the same contact

P Slightly to right 4 miles

C Affirmative. High moving

P Steady east now

C Roger

P Lost contact

C Both vector 180

2244 P Turning right south

C Contact south higher

P Looking out. Steady south.

C Nine o'clock 3. sorry 3 o'clock

P Steady south no contact 2245

C Disregard snap 360 now

P 360 to the left Check fuel

C Possible contact 350 range 10

P 350, 10

C 2 contacts due to civilian traffic same position 345, 9 left 330 17 left 330 left 330 2246

C Civilian traffic 340 range 7

P Contact on traffic

C At 5000ft, other contact at 325 range is 7, no height

P Contact on the radar now

C Check camera on

P Camera on loosing contact

C He's now 345 range is 5

P We have the same in B 8, 10000ft. MEEL

C 350, 3

P Radar contact Contact slightly to the left, 8 miles, lost contact now 2247 C He's at your 360 now 360...

P Request to turn north

C Clear now

P Steady north efflux

C Roger, no contact

P negative

C Reverse south (... going on up to time 22h53, but nothing really interesting) (The light at Coordinates : 50.32.08 04.11.08 has been easily identified; it was just a light on the top of a chimney stack).

The radar contacts of one F-16 with the so-called "UFOs" have been registered on a video record. One lasted for 46 seconds. Two F-16 were involved. One of the F-16 had 13 registered contacts; the other one had also contacts, but they were not registered because the pilot did not push the right switch. The contacts can be divided into 5 groups, separated by periods without contact.

contact lasting beginning

number (seconds) at

1 2.3 00 h 13 March 31,1990 (March 30 22 h 13 GMT)

2 3.4

3 19.9 00 h 15

4 27.5 00 h 29

5 8.0

6 11.4

7 9.3

8 < 0.1

9 45.9 00 h 39

10 16.2

11 11.4

12 9.5

13 11.2 00 h 46

All positions and speeds are available on the video record. Speeds of vertical displacement seem to be sometimes above 1000 knots.

Measured speeds are digitally displayed with only three numbers, so 200 knots could be 1200 or 2200 knots. Knowing that, positions and speeds can be correlated (however, above 1000 knots, the three last digits are dubious).

Here is the transcript of one of the contacts:

Seconds after Heading Speed Altitude lock-on (degrees) (knots) (feet)

00 200 150 7000

01 200 150 7000

02 200 150 7000

03 200 150 7000

04 sharp 200 acceleration 150 6000

05 turn 270 = 22 g 560 6000

06 270 560 6000

07 270 570 6000

08 270 560 7000

09 270 550 7000

10 210 560 9000

11 210 570 10000

12 210 560 11000

13 210 570 10000

14 270 770 7000

15 270 770 6000

16 270 780 6000

17 270 790 5000

18 290 1010 4000

19 290 1000 3000

20 290 990 2000

21 290 990 1000

22 300 990 0000

22.5 300 980 0000 Break lock

When you see for example altitude 5000, this means between 4500 and 5500.

So 0000 means between 0 and 500. 0 is sea level; mean ground altitude in this area is about 200 feet (therefore 0000 means in fact between 200 and 500).

What follows are comments from a person who is in holidays at the moment, so I couldn't contact him to have his agreement to give his name, so I ammm following the net etiquette and won't tell it before he comes back. Anyway I quite agree with the following :

The Belgian skies south-east of Brussels were densely populated during the night March 30-31, 1990. There were at least three, and maybe six bright lights with changing colors, observed by gendarmes from 23 h (local time) to 1 h. There were two F-16 hunting true or false echoes from 0 h to 1 h. Local time = GMT + 2.

But there was something else. At 0 h 28, the Semmerzake radar detected an object 2500 ft over the western part of the Brussels agglomeration, moving towards Liege (roughly speaking, towards east) at 450 knots. At 0 h 29, the Glons radar detected it also. From 0 h 29 to 0 h 33, both radars followed the craft, which was going in straight line towards Liege, increasing its speed and its altitude. The Semmerzake radar spotted it again 6000 ft over Liege at 0 h 35, speed 650 knots. The last point was some 12 miles east of Liege, altitude 12000 ft, at 0 h 36.

The Semmerzake radar is an array type radar. It is used for military air safety. Semmerzake is about 30 miles west of Brussels.

Glons CRC is a part of NADGE (NATO Air Defense Ground Environment).

There are about 80 NADGE CRC in Europe (including Turkey). Its missions are: 1. detect and follow every flight in the Belgian air space, 2. identify friend or foe, 3. if foe, intercept and/or destroy according to the alert status. The Glons radar is a multipurpose impulsion type radar. Glons is about 6 miles north of Liege. The distance Brussels-Liege is about 60 miles.

There is another radar at Bertem, for civilian traffic. The craft passed 5 miles south of Bertem at 0 h 30. The Bertem radar did not see anything.

What was this?

1) Civilian traffic? I don't know anything in aviation, but I believed that airliners did not go that fast when they were that low. Also, I thought that each civilian flight was known to the military.

2) A little private jet? Maybe, if all this story is a hoax (it should be a really big hoax, with airship(s), jet(s) and probably ULMs). And are there private jets which go that fast?

3) A military plane? It was not one of the two F-16, which, instead of moving in straight line, were describing complicated loops (I have the plot of all the trajectories). In my opinion, it looks more like a stealth aircraft (F-117 A or TR-3 A), because it was seen only from certain angles. The Bertem radar, which was the best located, never saw it. But apparently the Belgian military did not know of this plane, at least in May 1990, when the Belgian Air Force released its first report about the incidents:

# 00 h 32: The Glons and Semmerzake radars have a contact at 110 / 6 NM

# away Beauvechain, which heads for Bierset at 7000 feet and high speed.

# The registered speeds go from 478 to 690 knots. The contact is lost

# above Bierset. The Maastricht radar control center has had no contact

# with this UFO.

Summary

29 November 1989: Massive sightings by at least 30 groups of witnesses between Liege and Eupen.

30 March 1990: Belgian Air Force scrambles two F-16s in response to ground sightings; multiple radar locks obtained by both ground and airborne radar.

22 June 1990: Belgian Air Force releases detailed information on the

30 March 1990 sightings, including radar recordings.

Conclusion: 'Unable to identify either the nature or the origin of the phenomena.' Balloons, ultralights,

remotely-piloted vehicles, conventional aircraft, stealth aircraft, laser projections, and mirages all

ruled out.

6 November 1990: Various sightings all over Europe. Paris Air Traffic Control sees the Triangle but nothing shows on radar. Others report triangles, balls, lights, smokes, etc. Locations include France, Belgium, Germany, Switzerland, and Italy.

The following report has been provided by Jean Manfroid of the Liege University and the Institute of Astrophysics. Mr. Manfroid is a subscriber to the ParaNet digest on Internet.

SCIENTISTS OF THE ASTROPHYSICAL INSTITUTE OF THE UNIVERSITY OF LIEGE COMMUNICATE THE FOLLOWING REPORT ON THE SOBEPS BOOK ABOUT BELGIAN UFOS, AND AGREE TO HAVE IT DISTRIBUTED VIA PARANET.

Belgian UFOs

SOBEPS, a Belgian association of UFO buffs has compiled and published a series of accounts of UFO sightings in the Liege area. The title is "The UFO wave over Belgium" (in French), and it is now a top selling book here. The preface is by the French CNRS scientist Petit, well-known for the fact that his scientific inspiration is due to aliens (coming from planet UMMO, 15 light years from us, as you should know). Coincidentally, Dr Petit and others are publishing at the same time books on the UMMITs.

The Belgian scientific community and specially the astronomers have followed the development of this UFO story since its beginning two years ago. The first events were reported at a time when many astronomers were busy observing several comets, among other things. Moreover, Western Europe was blessed with nice weather, so that the night sky was particularly well examined by many expert observers. A very impressive Venus hung for several months in the evening sky. There was also a rather intense activity at the local airport, with frequent AWACS patrols. And, as usual, lots of aircrafts crossed the Liege area, with, at any time, a minimum of 3 or 4 to be seen.

As always during the eastern elongations of Venus (sensibly more than for the morning elongations, like the current one), we received many calls from people excited by strange lights crossing the evening sky. When more information was asked, it almost invariably turned out to be Venus, although the Moon and halos were sometimes implied. We were also asked to examine several video tapes received by the national TV station. Again, Venus was almost always the culprit. These tapes were, as a rule, affected by very bad images, the automatic focusing being fooled by surrounding objects, or by trying to catch a point source at infinity... Nice effects were obtained with extra-focal images of the aperture stop, pulsating disks etc. We were often surprised by the descriptions given by the people who took the videos: they cited distances of 30 or 50 meters, they spoke of hanging globes, moving rapidly, following their cars etc... though their recordings showed much more benign events.

Invariably, all those people were looking at the sky for the first time. This raises some doubts on the validity of occasional witnesses.

Some of these accounts, as well as others, were relayed by the media. Video tapes of aircrafts at night, showing only their lights were visible. The snowball effect rapidly developed.

Witnesses appeared, reporting triangles in the sky, while frustrated astronomers, albeit logging many more hours of observations (with sophisticated equipment), continued to see satellites, meteorites, aircrafts (at times as triangles of light spots). Apparently SOBEPS accepts the fact that Belgian UFOs adopted the international conventions for the lights on their flying crafts. That three lights could form a triangle seemed to have impressed SOBEPS analysts.

Meanwhile the public became "ripe" for a "serious" brain-storming by SOBEPS. Several observing campaigns were set up with many UFOs being caught. The air force was somehow involved, with air fighters ready to take off on short notice. One fighter caught, during a few seconds, spurious echoes with supersonic velocities. Certainly some atmospheric or electronic disturbance, but this was interpreted by SOBEPS as the ultimate proof of alien visitors (when a police radar clocked a road signal above the speed limit some years ago, nobody thought of that interpretation). Nothing was seen visually, which means that, though UFOs can be invisible, they do not have the certainly much simpler stealth technology.

Again, during those campaigns, expert amateur and professional astronomers saw no UFOs at all.

All these accounts are compiled in the biased SOBEPS book. A typical example of the scientific philosophy of the SOBEPS can be found in a UFO sighting during the February 90 lunar eclipse. Hundreds of people were in the field, observing the sky, and they saw the Moon, but also planets, stars, satellites and aircrafts. But from inside the bathroom of a nearby house, one person glimpsed some fast-moving light close to the Moon. She got another brief glimpse from another window. This witness was retained in the SOBEPS compilation. The poor folks who had perfect observing conditions, who knew something about the sky, and who saw a plane instead of a UFO, are not given consideration.

The photographic and video material included in the report is very poor. After picking out aircrafts and astronomical objects, only out-of-focus, blurred images remain. Some of them certainly are fabricated. Most awful of all is the grotesque cover picture. One of the strangest aspects is that, in spite of thousands of witnesses, no clear, crisp, image has been produced. Any other so widespread phenomenon would have resulted in hundreds of nice photographs and kilometers of indisputable video material.

The release of the SOBEPS report was greeted by full-page articles in newspapers with provocative titles stating that alien visitors are among us, and that this is now a scienfically accepted fact. The national TV network danced to the same tune.

We made public our concerns on the issue and a note was quickly released to the press by 10 scientists from various institutions. This note found some positive echoes in the media.

Our intent was to disprove the alleged implication of the scientists in this affair (only 2 or 3 scientists are involved in the SOBEPS activities). We have looked at the SOBEPS report, and we found that it is in no way a scientific work. It does not bring the tiniest bit of evidence in favor of alien visitors.

Discovering evidence of extra-terrestrial life would be a tremendous feat in the history of mankind, but SOBEPS-like worksdo nothing toward such a discovery. On the contrary, there is some risk to bring bad publicity to serious projects like SETI.

A conclusion that might be drawn by some, is that the Belgian UFO wave is just a well-orchestrated commercial affair, with deliberate exploitation of human credulity.

Our general opinion is that the SOBEPS report totally lacks scientific objectivity.

N.B. An excellent, in-depth, exhaustive, coverage of the UFO phenomenon, had been published in early 1990, by Marc Hallet -- "Historical and scientific analysis of the UFO phenomenon" -- but in a limited number of copies. The small impact of this serious, scientific, work, compared to the giant waves generated by SOBEPS and other farcical compilations is frustrating.

J. Demaret, N. Grevesse, A. Lausberg, J. Manfroid, A. Noels J. Surdej, J.P. Swings

(Institute of Astrophysics, University of Liege)