UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 1998 > Jul > Jul 31

Re: Belgium Sightings: Discussion Summaries &

From: Serge Salvaille <sergesa@connectmmic.net>
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1998 23:54:18 -0400
Fwd Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1998 12:25:42 -0400
Subject: Re: Belgium Sightings: Discussion Summaries &

>Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1998 23:50:05 -0400
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto" <updates@globalserve.net>
>From: Jerry Cohen <rjcohen@li.net>
>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.



I have noticed that your synopsis covers ONE sighting of the
Belgian UFO Flap. But there is some small data missing...

From: Vague d'Ovni sur La Belgique, written by the SOBEPS in 1991,
a 502 pages book on the Belgium UFO flap.

In chapter 9 (pp. 437-442) we get statistics on 632 reports
(capitalized numbers are mine) from November 29 1989 to March 12 1991.

With a rough surface of 31,000 square kilometers Belgium is, for
an American, 1.5 times the size of the New Jersey. It should fit
300 times inside continental United States, 8 times inside Great
Britain, 18 times inside France. It fits twice within itself due
to national problems.

To get an idea of the flap this would have had the US with
nearly 190,000 UFO sightings in 16 months, Great Britain with
over 5 000 cases, France with more than 11,000.

(Professor Meessen was invited by UFO Qu=E9bec to Montreal in fall
of 1992 (or was it 1991). You understand that I jumped out of my
chair when one speaker - not Meessen! - started comparing the
Belgium flap with an alleged similar flap in Canada. When I
asked the speaker how many Canadian sightings he was talking
about and he answered 132, I looked at the guy and started to
ask him some questions about geography.)

Of course none of the 632 reports is worth looking into. The
magic of numbers has had the debunkers ojsimpsonize the F-16
case and thus contaminate the other 631 cases.

That's how you go from flap to flop.

This is science.

Please add this to any future synopsis you make on the Belgium
UFO flap.

Serge Salvaille