UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 1998 > Jul > Jul 30

Belgium Sightings: Discussion Summaries & Comments

From: Jerry Cohen <rjcohen@li.net>
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 23:50:05 -0400
Fwd Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 06:38:48 -0400
Subject: Belgium Sightings: Discussion Summaries & Comments

>From: The Duke of Mendoza - Peter Brookesmith
>Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 22:56:04 -0400
>Fwd Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 09:38:58 -0400
>Subject: Re: Triangular UFOs over Belgium

>>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>>From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@connectmmic.net>
>>Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Triangular UFOs over Belgium
>>Date: Sat, 18 Jul 1998 11:53:17 -0400

>>>Date: Wed, 15 Jul 1998 11:05:29 -0700
>>>From: "Kyle R. Mcallister" <skytracker@geocities.com>
>>>To: updates@globalserve.net
>>>Subject: Triangular UFOs over Belgium

Peter's correspondence re Serge and Kyle from above:

>>The 1989 Belgium UFO flap was debated on the List last year.
>>The debate turned out to be the usual: skeptics on one side,
>>truth seekers on the other.


>I suggest Kyle looks up the discussion of the Belgian flap on
>the Ufomind/UpDates Web archive (address below), where he will
>find "truth" seekers inventing such items as supersonic balloons
>and putting them into the mouths of skeptics. He will also find
>Mendoza saying he thought the evidence for there being an actual
>FT craft involved was inconclusive, and that little was proven
>one way or the other, or words to that effect.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

JC:   Unfortunately there was no URL below that would take us
directly to the file in question.

Notwithstanding, what we really need to do is find the essential
"data" of this case by getting to the core of discussions which
may contain same, and eliminating all the non-data type words
which tend to flow when one party or the other feels affronted
for various reasons.

Therefore, I have put together the following with this in mind.
(while providing the original URLs for Kyle and other readers to
peruse for accuracy checks, where necessary along the way) The
results of this entire proceeding can certainly be expanded upon
at a later date.

The information (data) I'm talking about in this instance is
what most of us _should_ be searching for and perhaps if we're
lucky, where some truly meaningful insights are most probably
waiting to be found.

For instance, we know some things that the objects recorded and
seen in the Belgium sightings "were not."

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

A response I had made to BRETT.OLBRYS who thought a video he
mentions reminded him of the AVRO Vulcan Bomber.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Loy Pressley, who has some familiarity w\ Vulcan Bomber, ruled
out that possibility. (The object descriptions given by various
witnesses do not really match the Vulcan)


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

We know it wasn't a LoFlyte plane (if anyone was even thinking
this) because:

We have a discussion between Henny van der Pluijm and Jared
Anderson in another case where Jared feels a sighting may have
been the LoFlyte plane.

Henny says the object maneuvers recorded by the Belgium A.F. are
impossible to perform with the LoFlyte plane. This would apply
to the data from the Belgium sightings as well since the LoFlyte
could not have performed the maneuvers displayed in the data
supplied by the BAF.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Then, in a discussion between Christophe Meessen and Henny van
der Pluijm, Meessen states, without giving the exact name of
book, page reference, exact quote, etc. (BTW, these are
definitely necessary for us to have a proper discussion via
which _all_ can see the complete results of these discussions
and make their own fair assessment regarding same here on the

Statements by Meessen:
1.	"..no triangular object reported where the F16 detected
the erratic signal."

2.  "...no ground visual contacts beside moving lights. Lights
were more in intense wobbling than moving fast from side to side
of the sky"

3. "It was though a very uncommon light behaviors which
suggested it was not stars. But lights did not show
extraordinary displacements as would the UFO speed estimation
based on the F16 recording yield."

4. "we HAVE TO drop the F16 data as EVIDENCE of the presence of a
UFO simply because it COULD be a natural phenomenon."

Post from which Meessen's statements were taken:

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Rebuttal by Henny van der Pluijm citing specific points drawn
from the BAF report he provided in his post regarding previous

1.  "Apparently there were several objects in the sky that were
     visually reported to be maneuvering during the F16 chase.

2.  "... consider that one or more of them had simply switched
     off their lights, which would explain their sudden
     disappearance, as described, as well as the erratic radar
     trace that cannot be explained by any known natural
     phenomenon or radar error?

3.  "What natural phenomenon produces a jamming signal? What
     natural phenomenon accelerates after radar lock through the
     sound barrier, making three 70 degree turns and on altitudes
     between 0 and 11,000 feet?

4.  "...analyses by Dr. James McDonald tell me that only heavy
     temperature inversions can influence radar signals.

These were the atmospheric conditions of the night:

'A slight temperature inversion at ground, and another, as
slight, at 3000 feet.'

And as you can see, these altitudes do not coincide with the
radar trace that I presented. So why is the temperature
inversion explanation brought up in the first place?

JC:   I'm assuming the references to temperature inversion were
from a previous discussion by these two gentlemen.

van der Pluijm rebuttal:

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Jean-Pierre Pharabod had written (to Henny?)

> Reading the transcript
>of the conversation between the ground controller
>and the pilots, and scrutinizing the details of
>the locks as published in the first SOBEPS book,
>I concluded that it could be only locks number
>5 and 6 (Meessen's numerotation), lasting 8 and
>11.4 seconds. And this was very probably IMHO the
>craft flying in straight line from Brussels to
>Liege, at subsonic speed, and followed by the
>Glons and Semmerzake ground radars. But these
>echoes and this craft don't look extraterrestial,
>they don't have the "crazy" characteristics of
>the contact of which you reposted the transcript,
>they look like maybe a private jet flying
>illegally (no transponder). However the whole
>thing remains a bit mysterious

and Henny replied, after citing specific data on the contacts
(please see URL immediately below this section)

"This contact excerpt clearly shows simultaneous radar contact.
It also shows erratic moves that cannot be explained by any
terrestrial aircraft or natural phenomenon."

"Although the above maneuvers could not be witnessed visually
from the ground, the Glons radar had picked up the signal
earlier while the gendarmes were watching the objects in the

                             . . .

"Nowhere in the reports is there any mention that the Glons radar
lost contact with the objects. The Glons radar did direct the
F16s to the target. In other words, the same objects that were
seen by the gendarmes were later detected by F16 radar AND Glons
radar and showed the erractic signal."

"In other words, there is no need to dismiss the F16 radar
recordings as evidence."

Post w\data & previous conversation suppied by van der Pluijm:

JC:   Readers can draw their own conclusions. I agree with Henny.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

So from all this we know:

1) If the objects seen were not UFOs, the Belgium A.F., part of
    the NATO chain must really be incompetent not to know what
    they were chasing; so incompetent that they went public with
    this information and talked about it openly after it went up
    the chain of command.

2) Some objects seen in the Belgium sightings look a little like
the AVRO Vulcan Bomber except that:

  a)  The Vulcan Bomber is very "loud" aircraft and much if not
      all of what was seen in Belgium was silent.
  b)  Loy doesn't remember lights positioned on the bomber that
       compare with what was seen and photographed
  c)  The bomber is heavy and designed for high speed flight and
       can't fly very slowly as some of the objects seen in
       several instances re Belgium.

3) LoFlyte plane is eliminated as a possibility because it can't
do the maneuvering recorded and published by the Belgian A.F.

4) Temperature inversions are eliminated via James McDonald's

And Henny asks:

    a)  "What natural phenomenon produces a jamming signal?

    b)  "What natural phenomenon accelerates after radar lock
         through the sound barrier, making three 70 degree turns
         and on altitudes between 0 and 11,000 feet?

JC:    If skeptics have no solid answer to this then the
probability that the sighting was not a natural phenomenon must
certainly be considered. Not to do so would be to ignore the
data presented for our consideration.

So then, exactly what was it? A black project? Laser projections
that can fool ground/air radar and the men flying the planes?
The technology seems to have jumped a bit here.

Jerry Cohen

 Author: Oberg/Cooper rebuttals
Website: http://www.li.net/~rjcohen/
UFOmind: http://www.ufomind.com/ufo/people/c/cohen/

P.S.	I'd like to peruse those discussions concerning the
Belgium sightings that Peter mentioned at the outset of this
post. Does anyone have the URL?   Thanks.