• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

What Shall We Do about Radar-Confirmed UFOs?

Nous

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
You didn't bother to watch it as I said to.
So all your information on the topic comes from a YouTube video? You can't substantiate any of your claims about Bragg scattering, the Belgian millitary, what De Brouwer said, etc.? I take it you are unable to show that Marion's findings from his 2002 digital analysis of the original photo are false?

And you can't show us any oil well flares that resemble the Mexican military video?
 

Shad

Veteran Member
So all your information on the topic comes from a YouTube video?

Nope it comes from the statement of the military officer in charge during the event.

You can't substantiate any of your claims about Bragg scattering, the Belgian millitary, what De Brouwer said, etc.?

What do you think the interference he was talking about is....

I take it you are unable to show that Marion's findings from his 2002 digital analysis of the original photo are false?

Military reports trump photos of a object that can be replicated.

And you can't show us any oil well flares that resemble the Mexican military video?

I named the oil field which is the area in the photo was taken, that has known flares burning 24/7 and have for decades. The photo was 6 flares, nothing more. While your conclusion is that it was "Aliens" over an area know for being lite up during night...
 

Nous

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
So all your information on the topic comes from a YouTube video?
Nope it comes from the statement of the military officer in charge during the event.
Quote it, provide the link.

What do you think the interference he was talking about is....



Military reports trump photos of a object that can be replicated.



I named the oil field which is the area in the photos that has know flares. The photo was 6 flares, nothing more
So you can't substantiate any of your claims about Bragg scattering, the Belgian military, what De Brouwer said, etc.? And you are unable to show that Marion's findings from his 2002 digital analysis of the original photo are false?

And you can't show us any oil well flares that resemble the Mexican military video? It would be so easy to prove your claim about oil well flares moving the clouds like the Mexican military video.
 

Shad

Veteran Member
Quote it, provide the link.

I did. You just refuse to watch it.

So you can't substantiate any of your claims about Bragg scattering, the Belgian military, what De Brouwer said, etc.?

He said it was interference. Bragg scattering is a common form of interference

Radar Basics - Bragg-Scattering

And you are unable to show that Marion's findings from his 2002 digital analysis of the original photo are false?

Argument by authority. One person saying so does not make it true. Also read his retraction in The So-Called "Belgian Ufo Wave"

And you can't show us any oil well flares that resemble the Mexican military video? It would be so easy to prove your claim about oil well flares moving the clouds like the Mexican military video.

Go look up oil well flares in night photos, it isn't hard to do. How about looking at the specific field mentioned at night.

The photo shows no flares moving. You have a report by a nobody that was never there saying they moved. You have a still photo, nothing more. More so the report came from some TV anchor known for claiming ufo all the time.

How about using one TV host to debunk another.

You are being redirected...
 

Nous

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
False. De Brouwer does not claim that the radar signals were Bragg scattering or "interference". He does not contradict anything he states in his chapters here. And he does not contradict anything in the Belgian Air Force report, namely:

5. Conclusion.

a. In contradiction with other pointed out UFO sightings, for the first time a radar contact has been positively observed, in correlation 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.​


He said it was interference.
False. At no point does de Brouwer contradict anything that he has said elsewhere or anything in the Belgian Air Report. That's why you are unable to provide the time where he said, "It was interference."

Argument by authority.
False. The findings of a study conducted by one person is not an "argument by authority".

Also read his retraction in The So-Called "Belgian Ufo Wave"
Quote "his retraction" of Marion's findings and provide the link.

Go look up oil well flares in night photos, it isn't hard to do. How about looking at the specific field mentioned at night.

The photo shows no flares moving. You have a report by a nobody that was never there saying they moved. You have a still photo, nothing more.

How about using one TV host to debunk another.

You are being redirected...
Did you even watch this video? When they were at the location of the Mexican air force pilots, they couldn't see the oil rig platform at all. They could barely see the water. When they flew much closer, they showed that what they saw didn't even vaguely resemble the video of the Air Force pilots. James Fox says this at the end.

Both of your videos contradict your claims.
 

Shad

Veteran Member
False. De Brouwer does not claim that the radar signals were Bragg scattering or "interference". He does not contradict anything he states in his chapters here. And he does not contradict anything in the Belgian Air Force report, namely:

5. Conclusion.

a. In contradiction with other pointed out UFO sightings, for the first time a radar contact has been positively observed, in correlation 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.


Except he says there was no visual contacts at 8:40. He then cites the report.

Your report is in English so it is not an actual report. The source you have goes into dead links.It has a supposed call from a police officer directly to the CRC, which is NATO, not Belgium Air force. Heck you can not even look up your own source. Read your own source which is from Major Lambrechts. Different people Sherlock.....​


False. At no point does de Brouwer contradict anything that he has said elsewhere or anything in the Belgian Air Report. That's why you are unable to provide the time where he said, "It was interference."

8:40

False. The findings of a study conducted by one person is not an "argument by authority".

Actually it is as a single authority does not make something true.

  • Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
  • Person A makes claim C about subject S.
  • Therefore, C is true.
  • Person A is an authority on subject S.
  • Person A makes claim C about subject S.
  • Therefore, C is true.
Therefore evolution, creationism, Christianity, Islam, etc, etc, is true.

How is he an expert on flight systems and capabilities of of said craft when he has no knowledge base at all. He never took part in development of engine design, aerospace engineering, aircraft engineering, nothing. He is speculating, nothing more

Quote "his retraction" of Marion's findings and provide the link.

"Now, SOBEPS has published a second voluminous "report" about the so-called "Belgian UFO wave". Not very surprinsingly for those who were well informed, compelled as he was by the hard facts, professor Meessen distanced himself from his previous conclusions and admitted that very peculiar atmospheric conditions were probably the cause of the F-16 radar incident. He did it with a lot of verbose explanations, but he did it."



Did you even watch this video?

Yup. Did you listen to it is the important question..

When they were at the location of the Mexican air force pilots, they couldn't see the oil rig platform at all.

No they saw the flares as there were a hundred miles.

They could barely see the water.

So? Flares are going to be visual using the equipment they were using...

When they flew much closer, they showed that what they saw didn't even vaguely resemble the video of the Air Force pilots. James Fox says this at the end.

Too bad there is no footage of that and James Fox is not a expert. Reference your fallacy above.

Both of your videos contradict your claims.

No. One video does not support your conclusion of "Aliens" and one debunks it completely. You didn't watch the second one at all.
 
Last edited:

Milton Platt

Well-Known Member
I didn't see where anyone here did say any such thing, did you?

As with an unidentified criminal, the fact that an aircraft is unidentified does not mean that one cannot specify lots of facts about it, such as when and where it appeared, by what method it was observed, who observed it, what were its physical features and behavior. From such facts, one also might be able to deduce further facts about it. For example, the documented maneuvers performed by the Belgian UFO were unquestionably beyond what is achievable with human technology. From this fact, one can reason:

P1: All UFOs that exhibit characteristics that cannot be accounted for as either human-made objects or natural phenomena are of extraterrestrial origin.
P2: The UFO detected on multiple radars and pursued by F-16s on March 30-31 1990 in Belgium exhibited characteristics that cannot be accounted for as either human-made objects or natural phenomena are of extraterrestrial origin
C: Therefore, the UFO detected on multiple radars and pursued by F-16s on March 30-31 1990 in Belgium was of extraterrestrial origin.

Sorry, this still amounts to an agruement from ignorance. Essentially, you are saying that you cannot positively identify the object, so you choose to believe extraterrestrials are involved.
 

Kilgore Trout

Misanthropic Humanist
Sorry, this still amounts to an agruement from ignorance. Essentially, you are saying that you cannot positively identify the object, so you choose to believe extraterrestrials are involved.

Yes, fellow human. Let us discredit our other fellow human. Obviously, he must be malfunctioning. The concept of alien beings traveling 189.26 light years to visit the human-infested world of Sol-3 is clearly a delusion. Let us display our humorous derision through the creation of short barking sounds. Ha. Ha. Ha. He should immediately be recycled for biological resources and materials.
 

Nous

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Except he says there was no visual contacts at 8:40. He then cites the report.
I have no idea what you're trying to say here. De Brouwer does not say in the video you linked to, "It was interference." De Brouwer does not contradict anything he stated in his chapter in Kean's book, and he does not contradict anything in the BAF report.

Your report is in English so it is not an actual report. The source you have goes into dead links.It has a supposed call from a police officer directly to the CRC, which is NATO, not Belgium Air force. Heck you can not even look up your own source. Read your own source which is from Major Lambrechts.
Are you disputing that this: Report concerning the observation of UFOs in the night from March 30 to March 31, 1990 (Full Report) - UFO Evidence

and this: ufo - UFOs at close sight: the Belgium flap Lambrechts report

are correct translations of the BAF report by Lambrechts?

If so, then provide the report and the translation that you claim to be the BAF report.

False. The findings of a study conducted by one person is not an "argument by authority".
Actually it is as a single authority does not make something true.
You will need to inform yourself what argumentum ad vericundiam means: Argument from authority - Wikipedia You will see that I did not make any such fallacious argument.

As de Brouwer notes in his chapter in Kean's book, the photo of the Belgian UFO taken in April 1990 was examined by numerous (4) scientists. If you have some problem with their findings, then provide your source. "Argument from hoaxer" is less sound than "argument from authority".

Quote "his retraction" of Marion's findings and provide the link.
"Now, SOBEPS has published a second voluminous "report" about the so-called "Belgian UFO wave". Not very surprinsingly for those who were well informed, compelled as he was by the hard facts, professor Meessen distanced himself from his previous conclusions and admitted that very peculiar atmospheric conditions were probably the cause of the F-16 radar incident. He did it with a lot of verbose explanations, but he did it."
Your responses do not seem be related to what you have quoted from me.

If you believe I have said anything erroneous on this thread, then quote it and prove it.

Yup. Did you listen to it is the important question..



No they saw the flares as there were a hundred miles.



So? Flares are going to be visual using the equipment they were using...



Too bad there is no footage of that and James Fox is not a expert. Reference your fallacy above.



No. One video does not support your conclusion of "Aliens" and one debunks it completely. You didn't watch the second one at all.
Again I have no idea what any of this is supposed to mean. James Fox's video that you linked to demonstrates that the video made by the Mexican Air Force pilots is not of oil rig flares. Again, they were unable to even see the oil rig from the location at which the Mexican Air Force video was taken. As Fox and the camerawoman state numerous times, what they see doesn't even resemble the Mexican Air Force pilots' video.
 

Nous

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Sorry, this still amounts to an agruement from ignorance.
False. Educate yourself: Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia This is not an argumentum ad ignorantiam :

P1: All UFOs that exhibit characteristics that cannot be accounted for as either human-made objects or natural phenomena are of extraterrestrial origin.
P2: The UFO detected on multiple radars and pursued by F-16s on March 30-31 1990 in Belgium exhibited characteristics that cannot be accounted for as either human-made objects or natural phenomena are of extraterrestrial origin
C: Therefore, the UFO detected on multiple radars and pursued by F-16s on March 30-31 1990 in Belgium was of extraterrestrial origin.
 

Nous

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Yes, fellow human. Let us discredit our other fellow human. Obviously, he must be malfunctioning. The concept of alien beings traveling 189.26 light years to visit the human-infested world of Sol-3 is clearly a delusion. Let us display our humorous derision through the creation of short barking sounds. Ha. Ha. Ha. He should immediately be recycled for biological resources and materials.
The topic still makes you nervous, doesn't it? You'd probably feel better if you tried to get out your religion.
 

Shad

Veteran Member
I have no idea what you're trying to say here. De Brouwer does not say in the video you linked to, "It was interference." De Brouwer does not contradict anything he stated in his chapter in Kean's book, and he does not contradict anything in the BAF report.

Read you own source, it mentions inference and the report that "
the conclusion of the Air Force, therefore, was that the evidence was insufficient to prove that there were real crafts in the air on that occasion."

IE you have nothing.

http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc408.htm

I am disputing those reports as supportive of any claim to "Aliens". Also the report isn't a military report.

http://ufologie.patrickgross.org/htm/belrap01.htm

Not a military report but one made after the fact.

are correct translations of the BAF report by Lambrechts?

You mean NATO as NATO is in charge of the CRC. You can not even spot errors in the report.

If so, then provide the report and the translation that you claim to be the BAF report.

I do not need to present a report to point out your report is in English rather than French nor to point out your source ends in a dead link.

You will need to inform yourself what argumentum ad vericundiam means: Argument from authority - Wikipedia You will see that I did not make any such fallacious argument.

Actually you did as a PhD in physics does not make one an aircraft expert.. Try again son.

As de Brouwer notes in his chapter in Kean's book, the photo of the Belgian UFO taken in April 1990 was examined by numerous (4) scientists. If you have some problem with their findings, then provide your source. "Argument from hoaxer" is less sound than "argument from authority".

More non-experts which had no bearing in the military report. The image specialists opinion was not produced which is the one opinion that matters as the only evidence is a photo.

Your responses do not seem be related to what you have quoted from me.

No they are, you just do not bother to read nor watch anything

If you believe I have said anything erroneous on this thread, then quote it and prove it.

Since you only cite websites with the name UFO and dead end links to reports that is one of your problems.

Again I have no idea what any of this is supposed to mean. James Fox's video that you linked to demonstrates that the video made by the Mexican Air Force pilots is not of oil rig flares.

No it doesn't at all as it shows no close flyby as you claim

Again, they were unable to even see the oil rig from the location at which the Mexican Air Force video was taken.

Light sources show up on the camera they used, it was designed to do so. Hence why at 100km you can see the flares not the rigs.

As Fox and the camerawoman state numerous times, what they see doesn't even resemble the Mexican Air Force pilots' video.

Opinions by nobodies.
 

Nous

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Read you own source, it mentions inference and the report that "
the conclusion of the Air Force, therefore, was that the evidence was insufficient to prove that there were real crafts in the air on that occasion."
Perhaps you need to read the context:

On the evening of March 30-31,1990, an F-16 launch was initiated after the observation of strange lights by several policemen, and after an assumed flying object was confirmed by two military radar stations. Once aloft, the pilots tried to intercept the alleged crafts, and at one point recorded targets on their radar with unusual behavior, such as jumping huge distances in seconds and accelerating beyond human capacity. Unfortunately, they could not establish visual contact.

The defense minister received many follow-up questions about this launch, but the Air Force needed time to properly analyze the data. We called a press conference about three months later, on July 11,1990. The activities of the F-16s had been reconstructed, but the technical analysis was not fully completed. I presented one particular radar lock-on that showed extraordinary accelerations well outside the performance envelope of any known aircraft. Nevertheless, I added that this needed further analysis by experts because these types of returns could have been caused by electromagnetic interference.

It turned out that only one F-16 camera had made satisfactory radar recordings, so comparison between the aircraft recordings was not possible. This was a serious problem. A comparison would have allowed us to exclude those returns that were caused by electromagnetic interference, because the data from such interference are never the same on two different radars. Therefore, we couldn't be sure if the radar echoes were caused by electromagnetic interference or by something unusual.

The conclusion of the Air Force, therefore, was that the evidence was insufficient to prove that there were real crafts in the air on that occasion.

The Air Force's decision that the evidence was insufficient to conclude that there were unusual air activities during the night of March 30,1990, was gleefully accepted by the irrational skeptics and the debunkers, who immediately claimed that that whole Belgian UAP wave was a farce. For them, one explainable case is enough to discredit the more than five hundred remaining unexplainable sightings—a position that is still put forward by most of them today.

In 1990, the Air Force stated on several occasions that it had no explanation for the numerous sightings. Today, persistent skeptics, who make a point of publicizing their positions, have come forward with a theory that these were helicopters.​

Are you saying that we should include you here among the gleeful:

The Air Force's decision that the evidence was insufficient to conclude that there were unusual air activities during the night of March 30,1990, was gleefully accepted by the irrational skeptics and the debunkers, who immediately claimed that that whole Belgian UAP wave was a farce.
?
 

Shad

Veteran Member
Perhaps you need to read the context:

On the evening of March 30-31,1990, an F-16 launch was initiated after the observation of strange lights by several policemen, and after an assumed flying object was confirmed by two military radar stations. Once aloft, the pilots tried to intercept the alleged crafts, and at one point recorded targets on their radar with unusual behavior, such as jumping huge distances in seconds and accelerating beyond human capacity. Unfortunately, they could not establish visual contact.

The defense minister received many follow-up questions about this launch, but the Air Force needed time to properly analyze the data. We called a press conference about three months later, on July 11,1990. The activities of the F-16s had been reconstructed, but the technical analysis was not fully completed. I presented one particular radar lock-on that showed extraordinary accelerations well outside the performance envelope of any known aircraft. Nevertheless, I added that this needed further analysis by experts because these types of returns could have been caused by electromagnetic interference.

It turned out that only one F-16 camera had made satisfactory radar recordings, so comparison between the aircraft recordings was not possible. This was a serious problem. A comparison would have allowed us to exclude those returns that were caused by electromagnetic interference, because the data from such interference are never the same on two different radars. Therefore, we couldn't be sure if the radar echoes were caused by electromagnetic interference or by something unusual.

The conclusion of the Air Force, therefore, was that the evidence was insufficient to prove that there were real crafts in the air on that occasion.

The Air Force's decision that the evidence was insufficient to conclude that there were unusual air activities during the night of March 30,1990, was gleefully accepted by the irrational skeptics and the debunkers, who immediately claimed that that whole Belgian UAP wave was a farce. For them, one explainable case is enough to discredit the more than five hundred remaining unexplainable sightings—a position that is still put forward by most of them today.

In 1990, the Air Force stated on several occasions that it had no explanation for the numerous sightings. Today, persistent skeptics, who make a point of publicizing their positions, have come forward with a theory that these were helicopters.​

Are you saying that we should include you here among the gleeful:

?

So a report that denies your conclusion should be rejected because you believe in UFOs.....

From a UFO site no less given what it said about skeptics. Hilarious bias you present.

500 hundred reports? Cite said reports from credible source. You expect me to take a source from a nobody serious since you do. Hilarious. From a woman that can not figure out why the military response to UFO reports... It's like the USSR never probed NATO defenses and reactions or that there are stealth technology which counters radar.... Nope that never happens ever.... Your source is clueless. It's like radar is not used by the military to detect incoming aircraft and used to plot intercepts since the Battle of Britain.....
 
Last edited:

Nous

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
I am disputing those reports as supportive of any claim to "Aliens".
So you don't dispute anything I said or anything in the report.

Multiple independent facts in the report rule out the possibility of accounting for the March 30/31 UFOs as false echoes on radar, and rule out the possibility that the F-16 radars locked on aircraft of human technology, namely:

March 30:

23h00: The responsible controller (MC) for the Glons CRC receives a phone call of Mr. A. Renkin, MDL of the gendarmerie, which certifies to see, from his residence with Ramillies, three unusual lights above Thorembaies - Gembloux. These lights are definitely more intense than stars and the planets, they do not move and are laid out in an equilateral triangle. Their color is changing: red, green and yellow.

23h05: The gendarmerie of Wavre is requested by Glons CRC to send a patrol to the site to confirm this observation.

23h15: A new call by Mr. Renkin informs of a new phenomenon: three other lights go to the first triangle. One of these lights is much more brilliant than the others. Glons CRC meanwhile observes an unidentified radar contact at 5 km in the north of Beauvechain. The contact moves at a speed of approximately 25 nodes and in direction of the West (see chart).

23h28: A gendarmerie patrol with, among others, captain Finch, is on the location and confirms the observation by Mr. Renkin. Captain Pinson describes the observed phenomenon as follows: "the luminous points have the dimensions of a large star; they change color continuously. The color that dominates is the red, it changes then into blue, green, yellow and white, but not in the same order each time." The lights are very clear as if they were signals: that makes it possible to distinguish them from stars.

23h30 - 23h45: Meanwhile the three new lights approached the first observed triangle. In their turn, after having made a series of disordered movements, they place themselves in the same manner in triangular formation. During this time Glons CRC follows the phenomenon on the radar.

23h49-23h59: TCC/RP Semmerzake confirms in its turn to have a clear radar contact at the same position as that announced by Glons CRC.

23h56: After preliminary coordination with SOC II and since all the conditions are met for a take off at QRA (I), Glons CRC gives the order of takeoff (scramble order) to the 1 JW.

23h45-00h15: The luminous points continue to be observed clearly from the ground. The entire formation seems to move slowly compared to stars. The eyewitnesses on the ground notice that the UFO sends short and more intense light signals from time to time. Meanwhile, two weaker luminous points are noticed in direction of Eghezée. Those, like the others, also make short and erratic movements.

March 31:

00h05: Two F-16, QRA (i) of JW, Al 17 and AL 23 take off. Between 00h07 and 00h54, under the control of the CRC, on the whole nine attempts of interception of these UFO were undertaken by the hunters. The planes had briefs radar contacts on several occasions with the targets indicated by the CRC. In three cases, the pilots succeeded in locking (lock on) during a few seconds on the target, which, each time, brought a change of the UFO. The pilots never had a visual contact with the UFO.

00h13: First lock on the objective indicated by the CRC. Position: on the nose 6 NN, 9 000 feet, course: 250. The speed of the target changes into a minimum of time from 150 to 970 nodes, the altitude passing of 9 000 to 5 000 feet, then back to 11 000 feet and then, suddenly, going down again to ground level. This results in a break-lock after a few seconds, the pilots losing radar contact. Glons CRC informs, at the moment of the break-lock, that the hunters fly over the position of the target.

+/- 00h19-00h30: Both Semmerzake TCC and Glons CRC Glons lost the contact with the target. From time to time a blip appears in the area but they are too scarce to have a clear track. Meanwhile, the pilots contact the civil air traffic radio operator on VHF, in order to coordinate their movements with Brussels TMA. The radio operator UHF contact is maintained with the CRC Glons.

00h30: AL has a radar contact at 5 000 feet, position 255, 20 NM of Beauchevin (Nivelles). The target moves at very high speed (740 knots). Locking on the target lasts 6 seconds and at the time of the break-lock, the signal for radar jamming appears on the screen.

+/- 00h30: Ground witnesses see the F-16 passes three times. During the third passage, they see the planes turning in circle in the center of the great formation seen initially. At the same time, they note the disappearance of the small triangle while the most shiny dot located at the west of the large triangle moves very quickly, probably gaining altitude. This dot emits intense red signals in a repetitive way during the operation. The two other clear points above Eghezée are not visible any more either and only the luminous point in the west of the large triangle can be observed.

00h32: The Glons and Semmerzake radars have a contact at 110, 6 NN off Beauvechain, which moves at 7 000 feet and high speed in direction of Bierset. Recorded speeds go from 478 to 690 kts. The contact is lost above Bierset. The radar control center of Maastricht did not have any contact with this UFO.

00h39-00h41: Glons CRC mentions a possible contact at 10 NN of the planes, altitude of 10 000 feet. The pilots have a contact radar starting from 7 NM. A new acceleration of the target from 100 to 600 kts is noted. The lock on only lasts a few seconds and both the planes and CRC lose the contact.

00h47: The RAPCON of Beauvechain mentions a contact on its radar at an altitude of 6 500 feet, position starting from Beauvechain: 160/5 NM. Glons CRC has also a contact on the same position. This one is observed until 00h56.

00h45-01h00: Some attempts are still undertaken in order to intercept the UFO. The planes record only some very spurious radar contacts. The witnesses on the ground see the last remained UFO left there disappear in the direction from Louvain-La Neuve (NNO). At about 01h00, the UFO completely disappeared from the sight.

01h02: AL 17 and AL 23 leave the frequency of Glons CRC and return to their base.

01h06: The gendarmerie of Jodoigne mentions to Glons CRC that one has just observed a phenomenon like the one observed by Mr. Renkin at 23h15.

01h10: Landing of AL 17.

01h16: Landing of AL 23.

01h18: Captain Pinson who went to the brigade of Jodoigne describes his observation as follows: "four white luminous points form a square with Jodoigne as central point." The UFO, seen in the direction of Orp-Jauche (in the south-east of Jodoigne) is more brilliant and has a yellow-red color. The luminous points move with jerky and short movements.​


(1) Multiple credible witnesses near Wavre, including a captain of the national police, reported color-changing lights in formations in the sky, which is not accounted for as any human aircraft or device. Within 10 minutes, Glons radar station observed an unidentified radar contact in this vicinity (apparently 5-15 miles northeast of the witnesses). Officers arrive at the location of the witnesses and confirm their sighting. Shortly another radar station many miles away, in Semmerzke, using a different system, confirms having a clear contact of the signal reported by Glons. Identical false echoes do not occur on different radar systems, and false echoes are not reported by witnesses on the ground. Therefore the phenomenon reported by the witnesses and police officers and observed in that vicinity by two different radar systems was not a false echo.

(2) Under guidance of Glons CRC, this signal was picked up on yet a different radar system of the F-16s sent to intercept this aircraft seen on radar and by independent credible eyewitnesses. Again, false echoes do not occur on different radar systems. On three different occasions the F-16 pilots briefly locked on this target. F-16 radar does not lock on false echoes, as a lock-on calculates the object's aspect angle, heading, airspeed, and the closure rate. Each time the F-16s locked on, the target engaged in extraordinary evasive maneuvers, with radical changes in speed and altitude that could not have been performed by any human technology. Therefore, the target locked on by the F-16s was not a false echo and was not a human aircraft.

(3) Both Glons and Semmerzake systems lose contact at the time of the pilots' break-lock. Identical false echoes do not appear on different radar systems, and do not simultaneously disappear from different radar systems. Therefore the radar contact on the two ground systems was not a false echo.

(4) Minutes later, one pilot is able to lock onto a extraordinarily fast-moving target for 6 seconds, in which, upon break-lock, the system alerted the signal for radar jamming. False echoes do not jam radars, and there were no human aircraft in the vicinity flying at 740 knots. Therefore, the pilot's contact was not a false echo and was not a human aircraft.

(5) After contacts observed by both Glons and Semmerzake, Glons reports another contact that the pilots also see. Again, identical false echoes do not occur on different radar systems. Therefore this radar contact was not a false echo. The pilots briefly locked on this signal. Again, F-16 radar does not lock on false echoes. Therefore, the target of this lock-on was not a false echo. The pilots and Glons lost contact of this signal at the same time. Identical false echoes do not appear and disappear on different radar systems simultaneously, and no human-made radar-invisible aircraft was in the vicinity turning its radar shield on and off. Therefore, this signal was not a false echo, and was not human aircraft.

(6) Another signal is reported by different radar system in Beauvechain, which is also observed by Glons. Identical false echoes do not occur on different radar systems. Therefore this contact was not a false echo.

Additionally, according to the information provided by de Brouwer to Marie de Brosses for the July 1990 Paris Match article, the chase by the F-16s and the fantastic evasive maneuvers of the UFO “was observed from the ground by a great number of witnesses, among them 20 national policemen who saw both the object and the F-16s.” Again, false echoes are not observed by eyewitnesses. Therefore this UFO was not a false echo, and was not a human aircraft.
Not a military report but one made after the fact.

Actually you did as a PhD in physics does not make one an aircraft expert.
So you don't dispute any of the findings of the studies performed on the UFO photo taken in April 1990.

No they are, you just do not bother to read nor watch anything
I watched the James Fox video that you linked to, which demonstrates that the video of moving objects taken by the Mexican Air Force pilots could not possibly be oil rig flares.

Do you have another video that refutes your claims? I'll be glad to watch it.
 

Shad

Veteran Member
So you don't dispute anything I said or anything in the report.

Multiple independent facts in the report rule out the possibility of accounting for the March 30/31 UFOs as false echoes on radar, and rule out the possibility that the F-16 radars locked on aircraft of human technology, namely:

March 30:

23h00: The responsible controller (MC) for the Glons CRC receives a phone call of Mr. A. Renkin, MDL of the gendarmerie, which certifies to see, from his residence with Ramillies, three unusual lights above Thorembaies - Gembloux. These lights are definitely more intense than stars and the planets, they do not move and are laid out in an equilateral triangle. Their color is changing: red, green and yellow.

23h05: The gendarmerie of Wavre is requested by Glons CRC to send a patrol to the site to confirm this observation.

23h15: A new call by Mr. Renkin informs of a new phenomenon: three other lights go to the first triangle. One of these lights is much more brilliant than the others. Glons CRC meanwhile observes an unidentified radar contact at 5 km in the north of Beauvechain. The contact moves at a speed of approximately 25 nodes and in direction of the West (see chart).

23h28: A gendarmerie patrol with, among others, captain Finch, is on the location and confirms the observation by Mr. Renkin. Captain Pinson describes the observed phenomenon as follows: "the luminous points have the dimensions of a large star; they change color continuously. The color that dominates is the red, it changes then into blue, green, yellow and white, but not in the same order each time." The lights are very clear as if they were signals: that makes it possible to distinguish them from stars.

23h30 - 23h45: Meanwhile the three new lights approached the first observed triangle. In their turn, after having made a series of disordered movements, they place themselves in the same manner in triangular formation. During this time Glons CRC follows the phenomenon on the radar.

23h49-23h59: TCC/RP Semmerzake confirms in its turn to have a clear radar contact at the same position as that announced by Glons CRC.

23h56: After preliminary coordination with SOC II and since all the conditions are met for a take off at QRA (I), Glons CRC gives the order of takeoff (scramble order) to the 1 JW.

23h45-00h15: The luminous points continue to be observed clearly from the ground. The entire formation seems to move slowly compared to stars. The eyewitnesses on the ground notice that the UFO sends short and more intense light signals from time to time. Meanwhile, two weaker luminous points are noticed in direction of Eghezée. Those, like the others, also make short and erratic movements.

March 31:

00h05: Two F-16, QRA (i) of JW, Al 17 and AL 23 take off. Between 00h07 and 00h54, under the control of the CRC, on the whole nine attempts of interception of these UFO were undertaken by the hunters. The planes had briefs radar contacts on several occasions with the targets indicated by the CRC. In three cases, the pilots succeeded in locking (lock on) during a few seconds on the target, which, each time, brought a change of the UFO. The pilots never had a visual contact with the UFO.

00h13: First lock on the objective indicated by the CRC. Position: on the nose 6 NN, 9 000 feet, course: 250. The speed of the target changes into a minimum of time from 150 to 970 nodes, the altitude passing of 9 000 to 5 000 feet, then back to 11 000 feet and then, suddenly, going down again to ground level. This results in a break-lock after a few seconds, the pilots losing radar contact. Glons CRC informs, at the moment of the break-lock, that the hunters fly over the position of the target.

+/- 00h19-00h30: Both Semmerzake TCC and Glons CRC Glons lost the contact with the target. From time to time a blip appears in the area but they are too scarce to have a clear track. Meanwhile, the pilots contact the civil air traffic radio operator on VHF, in order to coordinate their movements with Brussels TMA. The radio operator UHF contact is maintained with the CRC Glons.

00h30: AL has a radar contact at 5 000 feet, position 255, 20 NM of Beauchevin (Nivelles). The target moves at very high speed (740 knots). Locking on the target lasts 6 seconds and at the time of the break-lock, the signal for radar jamming appears on the screen.

+/- 00h30: Ground witnesses see the F-16 passes three times. During the third passage, they see the planes turning in circle in the center of the great formation seen initially. At the same time, they note the disappearance of the small triangle while the most shiny dot located at the west of the large triangle moves very quickly, probably gaining altitude. This dot emits intense red signals in a repetitive way during the operation. The two other clear points above Eghezée are not visible any more either and only the luminous point in the west of the large triangle can be observed.

00h32: The Glons and Semmerzake radars have a contact at 110, 6 NN off Beauvechain, which moves at 7 000 feet and high speed in direction of Bierset. Recorded speeds go from 478 to 690 kts. The contact is lost above Bierset. The radar control center of Maastricht did not have any contact with this UFO.

00h39-00h41: Glons CRC mentions a possible contact at 10 NN of the planes, altitude of 10 000 feet. The pilots have a contact radar starting from 7 NM. A new acceleration of the target from 100 to 600 kts is noted. The lock on only lasts a few seconds and both the planes and CRC lose the contact.

00h47: The RAPCON of Beauvechain mentions a contact on its radar at an altitude of 6 500 feet, position starting from Beauvechain: 160/5 NM. Glons CRC has also a contact on the same position. This one is observed until 00h56.

00h45-01h00: Some attempts are still undertaken in order to intercept the UFO. The planes record only some very spurious radar contacts. The witnesses on the ground see the last remained UFO left there disappear in the direction from Louvain-La Neuve (NNO). At about 01h00, the UFO completely disappeared from the sight.

01h02: AL 17 and AL 23 leave the frequency of Glons CRC and return to their base.

01h06: The gendarmerie of Jodoigne mentions to Glons CRC that one has just observed a phenomenon like the one observed by Mr. Renkin at 23h15.

01h10: Landing of AL 17.

01h16: Landing of AL 23.

01h18: Captain Pinson who went to the brigade of Jodoigne describes his observation as follows: "four white luminous points form a square with Jodoigne as central point." The UFO, seen in the direction of Orp-Jauche (in the south-east of Jodoigne) is more brilliant and has a yellow-red color. The luminous points move with jerky and short movements.​

A report that is not from the military as it gets CRC information wrong.

(1) Multiple credible witnesses near Wavre, including a captain of the national police, reported color-changing lights in formations in the sky, which is not accounted for as any human aircraft or device. Within 10 minutes, Glons radar station observed an unidentified radar contact in this vicinity (apparently 5-15 miles northeast of the witnesses). Officers arrive at the location of the witnesses and confirm their sighting. Shortly another radar station many miles away, in Semmerzke, using a different system, confirms having a clear contact of the signal reported by Glons. Identical false echoes do not occur on different radar systems, and false echoes are not reported by witnesses on the ground. Therefore the phenomenon reported by the witnesses and police officers and observed in that vicinity by two different radar systems was not a false echo.

You have no established any credibility of witnesses. You merely assert this then expect people to accept your assertion

(2) Under guidance of Glons CRC, this signal was picked up on yet a different radar system of the F-16s sent to intercept this aircraft seen on radar and by independent credible eyewitnesses. Again, false echoes do not occur on different radar systems. On three different occasions the F-16 pilots briefly locked on this target. F-16 radar does not lock on false echoes, as a lock-on calculates the object's aspect angle, heading, airspeed, and the closure rate. Each time the F-16s locked on, the target engaged in extraordinary evasive maneuvers, with radical changes in speed and altitude that could not have been performed by any human technology. Therefore, the target locked on by the F-16s was not a false echo and was not a human aircraft.

Locks occur with radar interference. A lock on means nothing. The report contradicts this per it's conclusion.


(3) Both Glons and Semmerzake systems lose contact at the time of the pilots' break-lock. Identical false echoes do not appear on different radar systems, and do not simultaneously disappear from different radar systems. Therefore the radar contact on the two ground systems was not a false echo.

Identical echos are not expected with inference by definition as it is inference with the system. IE the system isn't working correctly.

(4) Minutes later, one pilot is able to lock onto a extraordinarily fast-moving target for 6 seconds, in which, upon break-lock, the system alerted the signal for radar jamming. False echoes do not jam radars, and there were no human aircraft in the vicinity flying at 740 knots. Therefore, the pilot's contact was not a false echo and was not a human aircraft.

Presupposition loaded tripe. The pilot locked via radar, nothing more. Radar jamming is speculation with no details. How was it jammed? You just accept an assertion blindly

(5) After contacts observed by both Glons and Semmerzake, Glons reports another contact that the pilots also see. Again, identical false echoes do not occur on different radar systems.

See above about interfence.

Therefore this radar contact was not a false echo.

False conclusion

The pilots briefly locked on this signal. Again, F-16 radar does not lock on false echoes. Therefore, the target of this lock-on was not a false echo. The pilots and Glons lost contact of this signal at the same time. Identical false echoes do not appear and disappear on different radar systems simultaneously, and no human-made radar-invisible aircraft was in the vicinity turning its radar shield on and off. Therefore, this signal was not a false echo, and was not human aircraft

Assertion

(6) Another signal is reported by different radar system in Beauvechain, which is also observed by Glons. Identical false echoes do not occur on different radar systems. Therefore this contact was not a false echo.

So what. None of these contacts are in the same position. and more assertions.

Additionally, according to the information provided by de Brouwer to Marie de Brosses for the July 1990 Paris Match article, the chase by the F-16s and the fantastic evasive maneuvers of the UFO “was observed from the ground by a great number of witnesses, among them 20 national policemen who saw both the object and the F-16s.” Again, false echoes are not observed by eyewitnesses. Therefore this UFO was not a false echo, and was not a human aircraft.

Assertions again.

This whole report is loaded with presupposition that it is a craft rather than faulty equipment. This is no military report but one edited by a UFO nut as the language is obvious. Try again son.
 

Nous

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
A report that is not from the military as it gets CRC information wrong.
Prove it.

You have no established any credibility of witnesses. You merely assert this then expect people to accept your assertion
Police captains and officers who give their names, report what they observed, and verify the independent reports of other eyewitnesses are credible--more credible than anonymous posters on discussion boards who call themselves "Shad". .

Locks occur with radar interference.
Prove it.

Identical echos are not expected with inference by definition as it is inference with the system. IE the system isn't working correctly.
What the hell does this mean? Are you trying to say something here that isn't circular?

The pilot locked via radar, nothing more.
Prove it.

Radar jamming is speculation
Prove it.


False conclusion
Prove it.


Assertion



So what. None of these contacts are in the same position. and more assertions.



Assertions again.
So you don't dispute any of the facts or conclusions that the UFOs cannot be accounted for as false echoes or human aircraft.

This whole report is loaded with presupposition that it is a craft rather than faulty equipment.
Prove it. I didn't see the report states any "presupposition.
This is no military report but one edited by a UFO nut as the language is obvious. Try again son.
Prove it.
 
Top