wow! rare video of jets chasing the belgium triangle

OK... these are the important points translated from the OP video.

Belgium 30th May 1990 close to the border with Holland. Air traffic controllers captured an unknown signal on radar in Glons and Semmerzake ( so 2 different areas). 100's of people witnessed a strange ' triangle' in the sky.
Two F-16's were dispatched and reported a non identifiable flying object.
The object climbed from 300 to 1700 feet and accelerated from 280 kph to 1,700 kph in one second...and disappeared. The commentator states that no human could have survived that acceleration.

looks prity good i havent seen that one ever, but i dont think there the acual fighters after it there in theday

Have discovered some more info that needs no translating re this sighting.

www.ufoevidence.org...

reply to post by Scramjet76


I'm not so sure it doesn't display terrestrial characteristics.

Nothing mentioned is that far outside of current engineering capabilities as to be considered "out of this world."

As for the whole cloaking theory - it's not really necessary. Radar is not an all-seeing eye. Everything from clouds to the target's geometry can monkey with the returns. In the case of pulse-Doppler radars, it is not uncommon for moving targets to disappear - a tactic known as "beaming" where you vector perpendicular to the source and get filtered out as static background. An object that is not moving (or moving very slowly) will often be filtered out by a pulse-Doppler radar - particularly in the 80s and 90s era radars.

Without knowing the specifics of many sightings and what radar(s) was not able to detect them - it's difficult to draw many conclusions about what technology may or may not be in use.

Originally posted by annella
reply to post by Movhisattva

 

The video is in Italian. I can understand most of it and will try to sort out the pertinent points later.

My bad, I mixed up my roman languages.
Thanks for the effort of translating.

Originally posted by billymeierprophet
remember the famous case of the belgium wave and the triangle picture which to this day hasnt been debunked

heres a video ive never seen before of jets being scrambled to chase it

AND.. footage of the triangle

!!!

Again we see bright lights against a black background implying night time but the jets shown are flying in daylight.

Guess someone could join together a clip of shiny bright lights against a black background and a missile launch and post a headline something like "Canadian military launches missile attack against swamp gas / party balloons".

reply to post by Aim64C

Without knowing the specifics of many sightings and what radar(s) was not able to detect them - it's difficult to draw many conclusions about what technology may or may not be in use.

Well yes there is no "all seeing eye" in radar. That is the point though. As far as I can tell the account goes people saw a strange object that looked "solid" in the sky. It was large and it was picked up on radar.

When the object moves then all bets are off with radar. It may simply move too fast for what the radar was designed for... in the case of airports I'm assuming the radar is designed specifically to detect solid objects the size of jets which move at hundreds of miles per hour within a given area. Something very far out of the norm might simply be filtered out.

But I simply offered an alternative as to how any alien could easily fool with our minds given the appropiate technology. If people report seeing an object from the ground and it's picked up on radar then why can't men in fighter pilots see it? Well there are many more plausible explanations in terms of human error, speed, excitement of the chase, clouds/weather, nighttime, etc, as to why the pilots might pick something up on radar but lose sight of it in the air. But in terms of technology, again I offered what I felt was the most probable explanation in terms of "hypothesized alien technology." But as to the report, I personally find Belgium military chasing clouds echos at night with F16's nearly as unbelievable as an alien craft.

As for your comment on humans being near this technology, I'm not sure how you arrived at that conclusion?

Before the radar had locked on for six seconds] the object had speed 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 acceleraton corresponds to 40 Gs.t

Source

How can you explain that using present day technology?

If people report seeing an object from the ground and it's picked up on radar then why can't men in fighter pilots see it? Well there are many more plausible explanations in terms of human error, speed, excitement of the chase, clouds/weather, nighttime, etc, as to why the pilots might pick something up on radar but lose sight of it in the air.

To me, the most plausible explanation is a physical object or objects combined with the activation of electronic counter measures which can fool radar, especially civilian air traffic control radar which will not be designed to counter military threats.

When somebody says, "it accelerated to mach squillion in a second", they probably mean, "we observed signals on our ground radar which we would interpret to mean that an object did XXX assuming the reflective characteristics of the object remained stationary and there were no additional radar emissions which would confuse the radar detection electronics".

This is a really cool case in my book. If you haven't already read Leslie Kean's UFOs: Generals, Pilots and Government Officials Go On the Record, I highly recommend it. Major General Wilfred du Brouwer (the Belgian Air Force official seen speaking at the end of the OP's video) wrote a chapter for the book on this wave of sightings. It is by far the most detailed account I've come across on this wave.

On a few occasions, these big triangular craft were observed (by officers of the Belgian national police force no less) emitting red glowing spheres which floated around, as if probing the surrounding terrain, before returning to the craft. Unsolved Mysteries did a really nice job of interviewing some of these officers and recreating the scene. You can watch it here:

www.youtube.com...

Also, General du Brouwer spoke at the 2007 National Press Club event organized by James Fox. Among other comments, the general notes that radar picked up the triangle performing "speeds and maneuvers that were well outside the performance envelope of existing aircraft." I've put together an edited version of his remarks, which you can watch here:

www.youtube.com...

Again, can't recommend Kean's book highly enough. Get it.

reply to post by Aim64C


Nothing much outside our present capabilities? Only this was 20 years ago now and personally, I'd be a tad circumspect if someone offered to accelerate my body by a few hundred Kms per hour in less than a second. Plus I'd suggest quite a few people in the military would like to get their hands on the sort of technology whereby. The moment another aircraft achieves weapon lock on the ship simply skips out of that lock on.

Given those abilities answer me this question. Why 5 years later, did they ever bother sending an *outdated* hunk of metal like the Stealth over a war zone in Serbia on a recon mission when they had that at their disposal? After all, they didn't have to tell anyone what the camera that took the pictures was attached to, plane wise did they?

reply to post by eNaR

You might want to find out some more about the Belgian wave before making unfounded statements like that.
If this was staged, then the hoax involved Belgian military, police, all media and thousands of witnesses - not just someone editing a youtube video. The footage is genuine, military did give press conferences on this back then.

reply to post by Movhisattva


since you know the case so well would you like to tell everyone what year that video surfaced claiming to be the "belgium ufo"?

reply to post by yeti101

I've seen this particular version a couple of years ago on the internet and Dutch versions some twenty years ago ('89-'90) on national television, when it was a weekly topic in our news.
So, to answer your question: 1990. And similar triangle lights footage in 1989.

I'm not claiming I know this case that well, just saying that a lot of sightings stirred our country back then. And footage of the lights, the f-16's, radar appearance and military press conference were all aired in those days on national television.

Interview with the same officer in English:

i notice no one has mentioned that they could have been UACV unmanned air combat vehicles, having no human pilot inside would allow for such manoeuvres freely with no worries as G force would not matter, and i presume if it has no pilot it could be powered by some sort of nuclear power supply for all its needs its possible as the radiation would have no pilot to kill either.

reply to post by blobby


That begs the question why build it so big in that case? The whole point about UAVs, is that they can be scaled down by a huge amount, thus costing much less in terms of manufacturing.

I have no doubt that the military have some pretty nifty kit up their sleeves we haven;t seen. Then again it completely fails to address the question of why the devil they have had these craft for 50+ years and still never used them in anger? Take the American invasion of Grenada. The troops went in using 20 year old ESSO maps because they had absolutely no current surveillance maps of the Island. This led them to bombing a hostel, thinking it was a barracks and killing several totally innocent civilians. Now Grenada is in the USAs' own back yard. If they own these incredible craft they could have surely managed a couple of recon missions to map the place, knowing there wasn't a hope in hells' chance of them being shot down?

Had they just sent 3 of these craft over Baghdad and quietly let the regime there have known they were *allied* craft, I'm guessing that war need never have happened and if they can use these craft to simply stop nuclear weapons working by sending an electronic impulse through the firing system why the chuff is Iran still sabre rattling like it is?

Given the economic climate of the last 30 years are you really suggesting that. The American Government has not only spent billions of dollars on developing these craft but then thrown away billions of dollars away on several armed conflicts they could have ended without ever leaving the comfort of the Oval Office and the War room? That's not to even mention how this technology would put the USA, economically, so far ahead of the game on the world stage it would guarantee their dominance for another several decades. Rather than, as is the case, they are watching China catch and over take them as the worlds leading economic power house?

reply to post by FireMoon


Awww what a sheeple!
And a spoilsport! Stop using logic, actual knowledge and critical thinking!
You need to "wake up!" and follow the CT line!
Don't you know the NWO controls all governments? And the military is just a taxpayer ripoff scheme?
Why even Hitler was just a tool of the Illuminatti !
Can't you think outside the box? (Meaning just make stuff up!)
Of course you are correct, but that will make absolutly no difference at all to the CT believer.
Facts and reason never do!

reply to post by mbkennel

combined with the activation of electronic counter measures which can fool radar, especially civilian air traffic control radar which will not be designed to counter military threats.

I realize the military would use different types of ground & air radar but can you please explain what that means specifically. I'm a little slow here today...

What specifically do you mean by "activation of electronic counter measures which can fool radar." What are they? Why do they activate? Etc etc etc..

When somebody says, "it accelerated to mach squillion in a second", they probably mean, "we observed signals on our ground radar which we would interpret to mean that an object did XXX assuming the reflective characteristics of the object remained stationary and there were no additional radar emissions which would confuse the radar detection electronics".

Yes they are reading a radar screen and not any alien mind. They have to interpret the radar data. This is not bulletproof and everyone recognizes this.

I'm looking for detailed specifics though. Can you be more specific on how something like this could happen?

With regards to the Belgium Triangle, how does something fool ground radar and fool the radar in the F16's? Could the weather, earth surface, etc fool both ground radar and military air-air radar with the exact same ghost caused by clutter?

reply to post by FireMoon


Great posts FireMoon. I see so many ATS "one liner + a link to a youtube vid" posts, that it gets annoying after awhile.

That begs the question why build it so big in that case? The whole point about UAVs, is that they can be scaled down by a huge amount, thus costing much less in terms of manufacturing.

FireMoon is right. This is supported by direct observation.

1) There is no reason to build a gigantic "nuclear powered craft" for the simple purposes of recon/UAV and a little intimidation. A much smaller device is not only better (cost effective) in terms of manufacturing, it's much better in terms of opening up the playbook for a variety of designs. Once you build a massive object you are (automatically) severely limiting possible methods of propulsion.

2) Such a thing is nearly physically impossible to build unless they provide a sufficient power source (which they don't have) or reduce the weight of the object. Again, comes down to simple physics. You can only reduce the mass/weight of a craft so much before you compromise the integrity of the structure considering the vehicle's reported performance. So you end up inventing things like Fouche's TR3B.

3) Direct observation shows us that the civilian world is also going small. Look at the new cell phones that nearly have the same processor as desktop computers did 10 years ago. Don't worry about a military nuclear 600 ft wide flying triangle spying on you. If the military really wanted to spy on you they'd probably use something very very small. Small = Harder to detect.

reply to post by Aim64C


I agree I still have no idea what it was really. I go with one or the other, it just depends. This particular case drives me nuts because I do go back and forth the more I read on it.

If it was ours it was careless and I dont know why we would just test a craft on our own people. How do we know they wouldn't shoot their experiment down? If it's beings from elsewhere, what do they want?

I have no idea....either way I find this case interesting and I find both crafts alien version or the tr3b to be interesting as well.

This for me is one of the best cases in "UFOlogy". I think Karl12 might have written a really great thread sometime ago on the incident which had an incredible amount of detail. I'll see if I can dig it up.

If I remember correctly there was even radar information released along with video of the radar echoes from the nights these incidents took place. It's a fascinating case and one that IMO will go unexplained for a very long time. What gives this case a major foundation is the types of eyewitness testimony involved. We have radar operators reporting the object along with military ground reports. We have police personal that followed the craft while at the same time coordinating the 'chase' with other officers and vehicles. We have mounds of civilian eyewitness testimony that corroborate the police and military testimony. Finally we have the Belgium Military going on record acknowledging the case and admitting they hadn't a clue what these objects were and stating that they did indeed track them on radar.