the background

*For the past year, citizens in the French-speaking region of Wallonia in Belgium have experienced an extraordinary UFO wave. Thousands of witnesses, including dozens of gendarmes (national police) and officers of the Belgian Air Force, have described triangular-shaped vehicles flying slowly over rooftops, hovering, shooting searchlights and performing incredible maneuvers. The objects have been captured on some 25 videotapes and tracked on both ground and airborne radar by the military.

*For the first time ever in the controversial history of UFOs anywhere in the world, the Belgian Minister of Defense, Guy Coeme, has authorized the Air Force to fully cooperate with SOBEPS, forwarding their reports, and even putting at their disposal a Hawker Sideley aircraft equipped with infrared cameras and sophisticated electronic sensors.

*Unlike many other UFO groups around the world, the SOBEPS has a team of respected scientists, including Leon Brenig, a nonlinear dynamics theorist at the Free University in Brussels, and Professor August Meessen, a physicist from the Catholic University at Louvain. Among the numerous UFO witnesses, in fact, were Lucien Clerebaut, Secretary General of SOBEPS, Patrick Ferryn, a film producer and founding member, and Jose Fernandez, another SOBEPS investigator.

breaking down the "wall" of ufo silence (http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc406.htm)

INTRODUCTION:
[A] This report provides the full picture of the reports of the involved units of the Belgian Air Force and the reports of the eyewitnesses of the Gendarmerie patrols on the unknown phenomena observes in the airspace (further refered to as UFOs) in the south of the line Bruxelles-Tirlemont during the night from March 30 to March 31, 1990.

(B]) The observations as much visual than by radar were of such a nature that it was decided to make take off two F-16 apparatuses of the 1 JW with like mission the identification of these UFO. The observations, both visual and by radar were of such has natural that it was decided to scramble two F-16 fighters of the 1 JW with has mission to identify these UFOs.

[C] This report was established by Major Lambrechts, VS 3/Ctl-Met 1.
CONTEXT:

Since the beginning of December 1989, strange phenomena were regularly noticed in the Belgian airspace. The Air Force has a certain number of eyewitnesses whose majority were indicated by the gendarmerie. Radar tracking stations of the air Force could in no case confirm, before March 30/31, 1990, these visual observations, and the presence of the UFO could never be established by the interceptors sent for this purpose. The staff of the air Force was able to present a certain number of assumptions concerning the origin of these UFOs. The presence or the test of B-2 or F-117 A (Stealth), RPV (Remotely Piloted Vehicles), ULM (Ultra Light Motorised) and AWACS in the Belgian airspace at the time of the facts can be excluded. The MLV office was informed of these discoveries by the notes in references 1 and 2. This request was accepted, following what the air Force regularly brought its co-operation to this society.

CHRONOLOGICAL SUMMARY:

Summary in chronological order of the events during the night from the 30 to 31, March 1990.

Note: all timings are in local time.

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.

*+/- 01h30: Les quatre OVNI perdent de leur luminosité et semblent disparaître dans quatre directions différentes.

GENERAL INFORMATION:
[A] Weather. The data mentioned by Wing Weather of the air Force for the zone concerned and during the night of March 30 at March 31 1990 are as follows: Visibility: 8 to 15 km with a clear sky. Wind with 10 000 feet: 050/60 nodes. A light inversion of temperature on the ground and another also weak with 3 000 feet. These data are confirmed in the report/ratio of the Pinson captain. It mentions moreover that the stars were quite visible.

[B) For lack of adequate material, the observers on the ground could not make any photograph or film of the phenomenon.

[C] With a telescope the UFO observed is described as follows: a kind of sphere of which a part is very luminous; one distinguished there also a triangular form.

FACTS
[A] In contradiction with other announced observations of UFO, for the first time was observed positively a contact radar in correlation with various sensors of the air Force (CRC, TCC, RAPCON, EBB and F-16 radar) and that in the same zone as the visual servations. This is to be explained by the fact why the UFO of March 30/31 were noted at an altitude of +/- 10 000 feet, whereas in the preceding case it was always a question of visual contacts at very low altitude.

[B) Testimonys at sight, on which this report/ratio is based partially, were made by gendarmes in service and their objectivity could not be questioned.

[C] The UFO, visualized at once by the F-16 radar in the mode Target Track (after interception), changed drastiquement their parameters. Speeds measured at this time and the changes of altitude exclude the assumption that the UFO observed could be confused with planes. Slow movements during the other phases different also from those of the planes. D. The pilots of the fighters never had visual contact with the UFO. This can be explained by the changes of the light intensity and even of the disappearance of the UFO at the time when F-16 arrived in the surroundings where they were observed on the ground.

[E] The assumption according to which it would act of an optical illusion, a confusion with planets or any other weather phenomenon is contradictory with the observations on radar, in particular altitude around 10 000 feet and the positions geometrical tends to prove a plan-program.

[F] The first observation of the slow displacement of the UFO was done about in the same direction and same speed as the wind. The direction differs from 30 of that of the wind (260 instead of 230). The assumption that they are sounding-balloons here is completely improbable. The altitude of the UFO remains in this phase with 10 000 feet, whereas the sounding-balloons continue to rise until the bursting towards 100 000 feet. The brilliant lights and their change of color can be explained with difficulty by such balloons. It is completely improbable that balloons remain with the same altitude during more than one hour, while preserving the same position between them. In Belgium, at the time of the observations radars, there was no weather inversion in progress. The assumption that it could acts of other balloons is to be drawn aside absolutely.

[G] Although one has several times measured supérieuses speeds to that of the sound, no shock wave was announced. Here also, no explanation can be given.

[H]Although the various witnesses on the ground finally announced eight points in the sky, the radars recorded only one contact at the same time. The points were seen remotely sufficient the ones of the others so that the radars can differentiate them too. No plausible explanation can be advanced.

[I] The assumption of air phenomena resulting from projections of holograms is to be also excluded: the laser projectors should have been normally observed by the pilots in flight. Moreover, the holograms cannot be detected by radar and a laser projection cannot be seen that if there is a screen like clouds for example. However here, the sky was released and there was no inversion of significant temperature.

Report concerning the observation of UFOs in the night from March 30 to March 31, 1990. (http://www.chez.com/lesovnis/htm/belrap01.htm)

*babelfish (http://babelfish.altavista.com/babelfish/) translated where needed

an alternate source (http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc408.htm)

Summary Report on Observations 30-31 March 1990 (http://www.chez.com/lesovnis/htm/belrap02.htm)

Radio communication transcript between pilot and controller, March 30-31 90, data. (http://www.chez.com/lesovnis/htm/beldoc01.htm)

various other stuff@chez (http://www.chez.com/lesovnis/htm/belgium.htm)

various links@ufoevidence.com (http://www.ufoevidence.org/topics/belgium.htm)

<EMBED SRC="http://www.chez.com/lesovnis/media/brouwer.wav" AUTOSTART=FALSE LOOP=FALSE WIDTH=145 HEIGHT=55 ALIGN="CENTER">
</EMBED>

Originally posted by James R
VRob and others:

Why don't you start a thread on just one of the incidents you referred to, giving the details of the incident which makes you convinced that alien visitation occurred? Then, the skeptics can ask questions and comment on just that one incident, and see where it takes us.

Half of the problem here is that the discussion seldom gets into details. Instead, things go back and forth, with skeptics flatly denying the possible existence of alien visits, and believers simply naming supposed events as if everybody should know about them and come to the same conclusions.

So, I would like the believers to choose just one incident they find convincing, and we'll look at the evidence in a separate thread. Ok?

ok lets analyse

What do you think this is evidence of, spookz? Alien spacecraft? If so, please tell me how you reached that conclusion.

Also, this all happened over a decade ago now. What was the final outcome of the investigations by the authorities?

Originally posted by James R
What do you think this is evidence of, spookz? Alien spacecraft? If so, please tell me how you reached that conclusion.

Also, this all happened over a decade ago now. What was the final outcome of the investigations by the authorities?

James,

It is evidence of a vehicle/craft in the sky that is performing far above any known technologies. It is also performing manuevers that were previously thought impossible. Manuevers that would have killed the occupant of the vehicle based on current information.

It was viewed from the ground. It was viewed from the air by military pilots. It was picked up on ground radar, and by the pilots radar. There WAS something unknown to current technologies flying in those skies.

It is being officially acknowledged by a Government of this planet.

THIS IS EVIDENCE! EVIDENCE that needs to be added together with the rest of the EVIDENCE.

Why do so many people take the stance that if each incident doesn't give us a final conclusion, then it doesn't mean a thing??? I'm continually baffled by this line of thinking.

What difference does it make how long ago it occured?

One final thought here. Why wasn't this incident picked up by the US media? I'd be willing to bet my mortgage that the majority of American citizens have never even heard of this incident. Same thing with the Mexico City incident. It received almost ZERO media attention in the US. Hmmmmm, I wonder why. And we're supposed to be the free and open society.

4. On 30 Mar 1990 at 23.00 Hr the Master Controller (MC) of the Air Defense radar station of Glons received a phone call from a person who declared to observe three independent blinking lights in the sky, changing colours, with a much higher intensity than the lights of the stars and forming a triangle. Meteo conditions were clear sky, no clouds, light wind and a minor temperature inversion at 3000 Ft.

5. The MC in turn notified the police of WAVRE which confirmed the sighting at +- 23 30 Hr. (Summary Report on Observations 30-31 March 1990) (http://www.chez.com/lesovnis/htm/belrap02.htm)

visual contact established. shape and motion is apparent

Meanwhile the MC had identified a radar contact at about 8 NM North of the ground observation. The contact moved slowely to the West at a speed of =- 25kts and an altitude of 10.000 Ft._

7. At 23.50 a second radar station, situated at +- 100 NM from the first, confirmed an identical contact at the same place of the radar contact of Glons. (Summary Report on Observations 30-31 March 1990) (http://www.chez.com/lesovnis/htm/belrap02.htm)

ground radar contact established

8. At 00.05 2 F16 were scrambled from BEAUVECHAIN airbase and guided towards the radar contacts. A total of 9 interception attempts have been made. At 6 occasions the pilots could establish a lock-on with their air interception radar. Lock-on distances varied between 5 and 8 NM. On all occasions targets varied speed and altitude very quickly and break-locks occurred after 10 to 60 seconds. Speeds varied between 150 and 1010 kts. At 3 occasions both F16 registered simultaneous lock-ons with the same parameters. The 2 F16 were flying +- 2 NM apart. No visual contact could be established by either of the F16 pilots. (Summary Report on Observations 30-31 March 1990) (http://www.chez.com/lesovnis/htm/belrap02.htm)

airborne radar locks established.

*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. Report concerning the observation of UFOs in the night from March 30 to March 31, 1990. (http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc408.htm)

radar jamming which indicates a deliberate and conscious action (6 times)

The Belgian Air Force was unable to identify neither the nature nor the origin of the phenomena. However, it had sufficient elements to exclude following assumptions:

a. Balloons. Impossible due to the highly variable speeds (confirmed visually and by radar).

b. ULM. Same as for balloons.

c. RPV. Impossible due to the hovering characteristics.

d. Aircraft (including Stealth). Same as for RPV. No noise.

e. Laser projections or Mirages. Unlikely due to lack of projection surface (no clouds). Light spots have been observed from different locations. Light spots moved over distance of more than 15 NM. Form of inlighted part of spots has been observed with spectacles. Laser projections or mirages can not be detected by radar.Summary Report on Observations 30-31 March 1990. (http://www.chez.com/lesovnis/htm/belrap02.htm)

the process of elimination. what it is not. all foreign and international bodies were queried to ascertain origin. all said "it is not us." now deceit could be a factor but very unlikely due to int laws. tests are not conducted over populated areas

Impossible due to the highly variable speeds (confirmed visually and by radar)

perhaps some elaboration....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. 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 Col. 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. An Unidentified Flying Object On The Radar Of An F-16 (http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc473.htm)

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 controls 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 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. An Unidentified Flying Object On The Radar Of An F-16 (http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc473.htm)

eliminating atmospheric causes.

the available evidence indicates not manmade. rather than speculate some lost amazonian tribe has thwe tech to do this stuff, i rather go with et.

why think et exists? i develop arguments here (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=31266)

Originally posted by James R
Also, this all happened over a decade ago now. What was the final outcome of the investigations by the authorities?

French ufologist Renaud Marhic analyzed the "new rumors" behind the Belgian UFOs in a recent Phenomena article, in which he published the responses sent by Leo Delcroix, Belgium's Minister of Defense, and De Brouwer. "Unfortunately, no explanation has been found to date," wrote Delcroix. "The nature and origin of the phenomenon remain unknown. One theory can be definitely dismissed, however, since the Belgian Armed Forces have been positively assured by American authorities that there has never been any sort of American aerial test flights."

Similarly, De Brouwer wrote to Marhic that , "Unfortunately, all I can say is that the multiple enquiries have not revealed any details, neither about the origin [n]or the nature of the phenomenon. ...[I]t is untrue that the Belgian military authorities can explain the phenomenon in terms of American military aircraft."

De Brouwer's conclusion is a fitting finale. "The day will come undoubtedly, when the phenomenon will be observed with technological means of detection and collection that won't leave a single doubt about its origin. This should lift a part of the veil that has covered the mystery for a long time. A mystery that continues thus present. But it exists, it is real, and that in itself is an important conclusion."

there are possible scenarios that can be rated with degrees of probabilty.

1> top secret project (manmade) - this implies that the scientific community is totally in the dark as to the extent of research in propulsion.

the ufos exibit speeds and maneuvers that are known to be impossible in our current state of tech. futhermore, the propulsion systems do not emit noise (no apparent sonic boom)

going with manmade.....the maneuvers would indicate unmanned as humans would be crushed by grav forces. exotic propulsions...... perhaps some examples james? anti grav? soundless? do we have stuff t hat meets the observed characteristics of the ufo?

2> atmospheric anomalies - the conditions at the time of the incidents were noted and held to be uneventful. there is a possibility of unknown stuff. there is also a possibility of pink and purple, flying dinosaurs

3> collective hallucinations and the simultaneous failure of radar tech - jeez! the lenghts i have to go to satisfy the pseudo skeptics

4>et - the foundation lies in our mythology and historical references. we progress from there to...habitable planets/interstellar travel/sentient life/advanced civs. (high likelihood of all 4)....something unknown flies around>et

order of probability....4>1>2>3

i personally do not think humans are structured to say it is unknown and leave it at that. publically you can an perhaps have to, but personnally it is different. it is automatic that the mind tends to find a ....."best possible fit". going with this impulse to seek an explanation,.......

...why dont you give me some possible explanations and their respective probabilities

*you can use a diaper if you have to. i wont mind;)

Originally posted by spookz
One theory can be definitely dismissed, however, since the Belgian Armed Forces have been positively assured by American authorities that there has never been any sort of American aerial test flights."

Spookz,

An assurance from the American authorities is about a trustworthy as my ex wife. Throughout all of my research on this subject, I've only come to one absolute conclusion. And that is that the American authorities should never be trusted to tell the truth.

I do not rule out the possibility that it was ours based on these reasons.

1. Based on the evidence at hand, I think it's a reasonable assumption to think we have recovered vehicles not of this earth. And have had them for over 50 years.

2. Someone has obviously been disecting these recovered vehicles in an attempt to duplicate their power/energy source.

3. I believe this back-engineering of recovered vehicles has produced some success. How much, I have no idea. But I do believe our Space endeavors are now performed by the military. I believe NASA is a public front. I just don't believe they'd continue to cut funding to our space program as much as they have if they didn't already have an alternative means of exploring/conquering space.

4. I can easily see the US testing its most advanced air/space craft over another country. In fact, I think they'd do this before they'd test one over an American City. It's much easier to sensor the news from abroad. Plus, for some strange reason, Americans seem to think that EVERY other country is below them. Thus, it's easier for our authorities to write these reports off as crazy foreigners.

But, that's just one theory.

Outside of those two theories, I really don't see any other explanation. I'd be very appreciative if someone could conjur up another.

Where, oh where are the debunkers?

futhermore, the propulsion systems do not emit noise (no apparent sonic boom)

Sonic booms are caused by objects moving faster than sound and have nothing to do with propulsion system noise.

bad sentence structuring. thanks for pointing that out:)

revised: futhermore, the propulsion systems do not emit noise. when the ufo is observed to accelerate beyond the speed of sound, there is no associated sonic boom

the ufos exibit speeds and maneuvers that are known to be impossible in our current state of tech

That is if you actually knew the current state of technology – you don’t.

Originally posted by (Q)
Sonic booms are caused by objects moving faster than sound and have nothing to do with propulsion system noise.

With this comment, it is quite obvious that you have not read the report Spookz posted.

there is a possibility of unknown stuff.

Exactly. And it is a good reason why many believers should not go off half-cocked with conclusions.

This is like shooting ducks in a barrel.

So what you're saying then Q is that the Belgium incident was caused by one of our own experimental craft?

I'm being serious here.

I think this is a valid theory. However, if it isn't one of ours, then what is it. Or better yet, where do you suppose it came from?

go for it q
give me your analysis based on the reports. then feel free to knock my analysis down.

vrob
there is nothing to argue here yet

i expect all contributors to this thread to give me their version of events based on the reports. after that is done, we can troll each other's ass to death!

It's very difficult to analyse this kind of thing 10 years after the event, when all the relevant information has already been sifted and parts selected out so as to point towards a particular conclusion.

Here and now, I can't confirm any of the "facts" myself. Instead, I need to rely on the reports given here, which no doubt have been ripped from some pro-UFO site on the web.

Even if the facts have been accurately reported, there is nothing to say that the original reports are correct, either. People make mistakes and often come to wrong conclusions about things, even when they have personally witnessed them. To take just one example, the estimation of the speed of an object from a visual observation (or even radar in some circumstances) relies on a correct perception of the distance to the object from the observer. If the object is closer than you think, your estimate of its speed will be larger than the actual speed.

There are many, many issues such as this which need to be examined, but we, sitting here now, just don't have access to all the information needed to look at this thoroughly. Given that lack, I would be inclined to fall back on reports made by reliable investigators who did have access to all the information. However, nobody has yet pointed me towards a definitive government report of the outcome of investigations, or similar source.

The only conclusion I can reach at this point is that the matter is unexplained. I see no evidence of extraterrestrial visitation, and even if all the facts are perfectly accurate, there are other, more prosaic, explanations (e.g. secret US testing of advanced aircraft).

when all the relevant information has already been sifted and parts selected out so as to point towards a particular conclusion.


how do you know this? there were some attachments to the main document that were not provided.

RAISING THE BAR (Or IMPOSSIBLE PERFECTION): This trick consists of demanding a new, higher and more difficult standard of evidence whenever it looks as if a skeptic's opponent is going to satisfy an old one. Often the skeptic doesn't make it clear exactly what the standards are in the first place. This can be especially effective if the skeptic can keep his opponent from noticing that he is continually changing his standard of evidence. That way, his opponent will eventually give up in complains, the skeptic can tag him as a whiner or a sore loser.


However, nobody has yet pointed me towards a definitive government report of the outcome of investigations, or similar source.

a govt report was provided

:D

Even further, if these observations are correct then they break the currently understood laws of physics. Therefore, if these observations are correct, there is a large whole concerning this are in our understanding of physics. Therefore, the likely hood of it being a natural phenomena can not be ruled out... because the whole thing is based on us not understanding natural phenomena. This is one of those cases where actuall evidence is needed, as I've already listed:
spectrographical analysis
in flight video
ground video
radar tracking
comm traffic
etc, etc

We have none of this, and no reasonable conclusions can be drawn.

perhaps you wanna the president to sign off on the doc? the un? you? perhaps we got have the mighty jamesr as the final arbiter of all things?:D

Originally posted by Persol
radar tracking
comm traffic

We have none of this, and no reasonable conclusions can be drawn.

look at the sites provided. ;)

All I see are screenshots and transcripts, both of which are lacking.

First, the screenshots do not provide any information to determine if this was a real contact. This could be clouds, radar echos, malfunction, whatever...
Funny enough, the craft seems to be in the SAME EXACT PLACE in respect to the plane, even though the plane is changing direction.

Additionally, the video links don't work.

Second, the transcripts say much less then the actual audio comm traffic (regardles of also being translated and such). Even avoiding that:
The pilots could easily be misinterpreting lights on the ground as simply below them.
The radar heights and aircraft heights have a very large error. (about 20%) Given this, reported jumps/drops in height are not all that special.

The images could be interesting, but I can't find any information on the source that analyzed them. All I found were other references to Prof. M. Acheroy, half of which had different pictures labeled as the original/modified ones.

both of which are lacking.

do not fool yourself. this will always be the case. i am not privy to govt docs if they havent been released to the public and is available on the net. i simply am not interested enough in ufo's to make any additional efforts to procure docs. there are other players on this forum. perhaps they will contribute more than what is currently being offered for evaluation

First, the screenshots do not provide any information to determine if this was a real contact. This could be clouds, radar echos, malfunction, whatever...

is that how it is supposed to work. you want the radar screen to glow "ufo ahead?" it might help if you look at whole picture. the comments...blah. taking stuff in isolation along with the limited resources available is not the way to go. the internet demands some flexibility unfortunately. this insistence on a zero margin of error is unrealistic and borders on the pathogical

it is interesting how the belgian airforce is held to be incompetent in order to support argument for a prosaic explanation. radar operators/pilots/analysts competence is held to be questionable. it is simple arrogance and denial. i do not see how it could be otherwise. these people direct air traffic/fly planes and to think they cannot make the simplest of distinctions as to what appears on their screen.... why airplanes should be dropping out of the sky in belgium. i guess you will not be flying over belgian airspace anytime soon eh?:D

The radar heights and aircraft heights have a very large error. (about 20%) Given this, reported jumps/drops in height are not all that special.

at the same instance in time?. what are you looking at?

Originally posted by spookz
is that how it is supposed to work. you want the radar screen to glow "ufo ahead?"
No. I want to make sure that there was actually something there and it wasn't a ghost image.

it might help if you look at whole picture.
might help if I had it :)

the internet demands some flexibility unfortunately. this insistence on a zero margin of error is unrealistic and borders on the pathogical
I'ts called science. Why jump to the most extreme conclusion when mopre mundane ones are readily available?

it is interesting how the belgian airforce is held to be incompetent in order to support argument for a prosaic explanation. radar operators/pilots/analysts competence is held to be questionable.
This has nothing to do with skill, and everything to do with the way people interpret information. (I'm reading something ahead and below you) (I see a light ahead and below me, must be it) The power of suggestion is demonstrated everyday. I shouldn't need to go through this.

...and to think they cannot make the simplest of distinctions as to what appears on their screen....
They have blinking dots on their screen. They have NO way of knowing if it it is actually there. 13 years later and the technology still picks up these glitches. Reasons like these are why it needs to be reviewed afterwards.

why airplanes should be dropping out of the sky in belgium.
Flair for dramatics?

at the same instance in time?. what are you looking at?
C: Altitude 11000ft, 350, 11 miles.
P: I have a contact 9000 heading 250 at 970 knots.
C: Possibly your target.

Originally posted by Persol
Even further, if these observations are correct then they break the currently understood laws of physics.

you refer to the lack of a sonic boom?

I refer to the lack of any effect on the atmosphere, the lack of propellant, the ability to convert energy to KE that fast.

You wouldn't get a boom unless they were flying past each other. (Even then, the pilot may not hear it if he's between ~.8-1 mach due to his wave breaking down the incomming one. Don't remember the low speed... may be .65 even)

might help if I had it :)

word

I'ts called science.

cmon, this is tech! it is why we build redundant systems. reality is nowhere as beautiful as abstractions. pure theory is far removed from the humdrum of human error and fallibilty

Why jump to the most extreme conclusion when mopre mundane ones are readily available?

the mundane had been ruled out

a. Balloons. Impossible due to the highly variable speeds (confirmed visually and by radar).

b. ULM. Same as for balloons.

c. RPV. Impossible due to the hovering characteristics.

d. Aircraft (including Stealth). Same as for RPV. No noise.

e. Laser projections or Mirages. Unlikely due to lack of projection surface (no clouds). Light spots have been observed from different locations. Light spots moved over distance of more than 15 NM. Form of inlighted part of spots has been observed with spectacles. Laser projections or mirages can not be detected by radar.

good weather conditions were indicated. the best you skeptics hold out for is some previously unexplained and unseen phenomena. kinda like a magic bullet. or santa claus

This has nothing to do with skill, and everything to do with the way people interpret information.

think i should doubt everything you say here. demand on independant verification of all that you utter? what happened here is not extraodinary. using simple tech such as eyeballs, radar and brains, a weird object was observed. even you could do it (which actually is the crux of the matter here,....unless i see, hear and touch it, i aint gonna buy into it. others that do are simply gullible

They have blinking dots on their screen. They have NO way of knowing if it it is actually there. 13 years later and the technology still picks up these glitches. Reasons like these are why it needs to be reviewed afterwards.

you see nothing methodical about the belgians procedure? where did they fail? you of course have the luxury of hindsight. personally, for a first, i think the did exceptionally well

Flair for dramatics?

hey, i live for these moments:D

Originally posted by spookz
reality is nowhere as beautiful as abstractions
A level of 'acceptable' quality of information is still needed.

...best you skeptics hold out for is some previously unexplained and unseen phenomena. kinda like a magic bullet. or santa claus
Lol, or ET. An previously unseen phenomena is much more likely to me. Atleast we have evidence that they exist and are at earth.

This has nothing to do with skill, and everything to do with the way people interpret information.
think i should doubt everything you say here. demand on independant verification of all that you utter? what happened here is not extraodinary. using simple tech such as eyeballs, radar and brains, a weird object was observed. even you could do it (which actually is the crux of the matter here,....unless i see, hear and touch it, i aint gonna buy into it. others that do are simply gullible
You completely missed my point. EVEN if I see it I'm going to investigate further to make sure I wasn't misinterpretting. The 'wierd object' may have been a bunch of lights on the ground. It's been known to happen before (usually with roads in mountains)

you see nothing methodical about the belgians procedure? where did they fail?
I don't know. Why did I get question 2 wrong on my 2nd grade spelling exam wrong? You don't know. Why? Not enough information.

you of course have the luxury of hindsight. personally, for a first, i think the did exceptionally well
This is very well documented.

hey, i live for these moments:D
lol

I refer to the lack of any effect on the atmosphere,

and this does not translate into a sonic boom?

the lack of propellant,

how do you know this

the ability to convert energy to KE that fast.

you refer to the acceleration? if so why is that so far fetched?

You wouldn't get a boom unless they were flying past each other. (Even then, the pilot may not hear it if he's between ~.8-1 mach due to his wave breaking down the incomming one. Don't remember the low speed... may be .65 even)

again i do not understand. are you saying an individual plane exceeding the speed of sound will not propogate a sonic boom unless there is a another object in the vicinity?

if i recall correctly, the lack of a sonic boom was attested to by the ground observers

A level of 'acceptable' quality of information is still needed.

which is of course the problem here. a official govt report has been summarily dismissed. the incomplete nature of the material presented in the thread is held as an account of the erroneous nature of the report. i think there are are psychological issue at work here. (despite all protests to the contrary)

Lol, or ET. An previously unseen phenomena is much more likely to me. Atleast we have evidence that they exist and are at earth

"at least....." is quite telling to me. it indicates a desire for simplicity and a continuation of the prevailing paradigm. (nothing really wrong with that mind you)

a "previously unseen phenomena" that does all that had been observed? (radar visibiilty.....blah) i find this way more outrageous than et. imagine that. engaging in wishful thinking. just like the nutters

You completely missed my point.

no i did not. you go off on a tangent below.

EVEN if I see it I'm going to investigate further to make sure I wasn't misinterpretting. The 'wierd object' may have been a bunch of lights on the ground. It's been known to happen before (usually with roads in mountains)

and the belgium flap relies on a single eyewitness! report was then turned into the movie of the week! perhaps you morphed into q

what are you implying here? the belgians engaged in a slipshod investigation? even tho you are aware that we may be privy to only a fraction of the docs? (note that this "unseen info" will support the conclusion reached by the belgian govt which i have on the page rather than contradict it)

I don't know. Why did I get question 2 wrong on my 2nd grade spelling exam wrong? You don't know. Why? Not enough information.

ok

This is very well documented.

hey now!

Persol,

You're really reaching here.

The evidence has been layed out.

1. Multiple radar detections.

2. Visual sighting from the ground and from the air.

3. Vehicle performance that our current level of technology considers to be impossible.

4. A genuine Government of this planet providing the facts. Not some UFO web sit, or organization.

What more do you want? I'll agree with you on only 1 issue. This could be our vehicle. Other than that, you are doing just what spookz said you were. You are raising the bar of evidence again. Nobody has come out and stated this is obviously at ET vehicle. They've provided the facts of A vehicle performing manuevers our known technology cannot do. So.....

Facts:

There was a vehicle in the Air over Belgium.

It performs manuevers unknown to our technology.

The only question remains is who's vehicle is it. Ours, or theirs.

Stating that it could be some unknown atmospheric phenomena is as rediculous as the UFO kooks who scream UFO everytime they see a bird or a plane in the air.

Interesting thread. I have to say I've always had a feeling that the "flying triangles" of recent years were ours, although I certainly can't quantify that. One of the points in opposition to this has always been "why would we test or fly such exotic vehicles over cities and populated areas of foreign countries?" Vallee may have an answer; while he believes there is a core of valid UFO cases (which may or may not be "extraterrestrial" in nature) he also believes that many incidents are well staged hoaxes, presumably by the military industrial complex, to test their ability to manipulate belief systems, to distract governments and militaries, etc.

While proof is absent for this theory, the ideas are consistent with "wargame" principles and information management that our national security complex engages in regularly. I think Vallee's idea becomes more relevant in an age in which it may become more difficult to tell the difference between our own exotic machinery and what might be someone else's.

While I'm here, take a look at this link. It allows the human mind to experience at least a moment of perspective of the vastness of space and just how tiny our planet is.

http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/java/scienceopticsu/powersof10/index

Vallee may have an answer;

sounds way too far fetched.
a simple field test of new tech would be a far more plausible explanation. no one knows it is a drill. locals come out in full force. ineffectual. resounding success

to test their ability to manipulate belief systems, to distract governments and militaries, etc

so far life goes on as usual. the raping, lootin and slaughter continue unabated. the manipulators better try another tack.

Originally posted by Ives
Interesting thread. I have to say I've always had a feeling that the "flying triangles" of recent years were ours, although I certainly can't quantify that. One of the points in opposition to this has always been "why would we test or fly such exotic vehicles over cities and populated areas of foreign countries?"

Ives,

I think our Mililtary would be much more likely to test an experimental craft over foreign ground than they would over an American city.

It's much easier for them to maintain control of the information that comes from an overseas report.

Plus, Most americans naively think they're so far above any foreign nation that they'd likely right it off as crazy foreigners.

Yes, I know it sounds far fetched. But we're talking UFOs in the first place. . . . . And really, when you consider what our empire is already capable of, is it really that far fetched? Compared to interstellar travel?

The field test explanation is worthy of discussion. But would the military test such a device in this way over a populated area without taking advantage of the opportunity of seeing how locals and governments/militaries react to a significant unknown like this?

Remember, our government is not what it seems. In the 50s, we were spraying our own cities with biological agents to test germ warfare capabilities, giving LSD to servicemen and committing other attrocities. Today we incarcerate people without lawyers or trials, or even charges. The government asks mail carriers to spy on us, and wishes to track which websites we visit. We have a vice president continuing to receive income from a large corporation receiving preferential treatment in a bidding process for rebuilding a country which we bombed, yet we pretend this isn't obviously crooked on its face.

How can anything be far-fetched these days? :cool:

Originally posted by Ives
The field test explanation is worthy of discussion. But would the military test such a device in this way over a populated area without taking advantage of the opportunity of seeing how locals and governments/militaries react to a significant unknown like this?

The theory that this is one of our craft is the one that I lean towards. This does not mean I'm ruling out the off-world craft theory, as I think it's very likely that we gained this technology from backengineering off-world technology.


Remember, our government is not what it seems. In the 50s, we were spraying our own cities with biological agents to test germ warfare capabilities, giving LSD to servicemen and committing other attrocities. Today we incarcerate people without lawyers or trials, or even charges. The government asks mail carriers to spy on us, and wishes to track which websites we visit. We have a vice president continuing to receive income from a large corporation receiving preferential treatment in a bidding process for rebuilding a country which we bombed, yet we pretend this isn't obviously crooked on its face.

How can anything be far-fetched these days? :cool:

Nothing can be ruled out when it comes to our Military/intelligent organizations.

Our Nation is the most hypocritical one on the planet. The saddest part of all, is the majority of its citizens still believe we are the good guys.

triangles have been observed at other places. where? perhaps a comparison might be of use. i recall virginia???

Spookz,

I believe some of the Hudson Valley sightings in the 1980s were of flying triangles. In fact, I'll bet a google search of that term reveals loads of incidents of varying quality.

Ives

Originally posted by spookz
I refer to the lack of any effect on the atmosphere,
and this does not translate into a sonic boom?
Not unless you were there to hear it. I refer to vortexes, but mainly condensation trails.

the lack of propellant,
how do you know this
Name something dense enough that could be coming out the back to accelerate the object that fast, and not be detected.

the ability to convert energy to KE that fast.
you refer to the acceleration? if so why is that so far fetched?
An object that size would be unable to produce that much acceleration with the amount of fuel it would be able to hold.

You wouldn't get a boom unless...
again i do not understand. are you saying an individual plane exceeding the speed of sound will not propogate a sonic boom unless there is a another object in the vicinity?
I'm saying it wouldn't be detected unless the plane flew past you. A plane flying behind another witll never detect it's sonic boom. A town behind or two the side will never detect it. Think of a 'tree falling in the forest'. The pressure wave is there. It requires something to hear that pressure wave for the boom.

if i recall correctly, the lack of a sonic boom was attested to by the ground observers
First, sonic booms do have range limits. Don't remember what they are though. Second, this would be yet again another reason for saying that this would require technology currently unknown if it was artificial, which requires physics currently unkown. It is just as likely to me to be a natural event.

the incomplete nature of the material presented in the thread is held as an account of the erroneous nature of the report.
And? There are more likely explanations which I can't rule out because I don't have enough information... so yes, lack of information is a problem.

it indicates a desire for simplicity and a continuation of the prevailing paradigm.
No, it's like the rest of science. Why latch onto the increibly complicated and less likely opinion of ET when less complicated and more likely options are not ruled out?

a "previously unseen phenomena" that does all that had been observed? (radar visibiilty.....blah)
The majority (if not all) atmospheric phenomena are radar visible.

what are you implying here? the belgians engaged in a slipshod investigation? even tho you are aware that we may be privy to only a fraction of the docs?
And you expect me to assume that the rest agrees with the ET hypothesis? Why?

Stating that it could be some unknown atmospheric phenomena is as rediculous as the UFO kooks who scream UFO everytime they see a bird or a plane in the air.
The only thing here which tells me it can't simply be atmospheric is the video of the triange craft.

a simple field test of new tech would be a far more plausible explanation. no one knows it is a drill. locals come out in full force. ineffectual. resounding success
This would require a fairly incomptent government to test 'secret craft' this way... in which case I wouldn't trust their anaylsis. (although it could be a completely different government) Regardless, I don't see anybody having technology that could do this as of 10 years ago.

If people actually knew what this was I doubt that it would still be a secret after 10 years.

Spookz - Excellent job. You have provided everything asked of you, within your capabilities.

So where are all the usual skeptics? Kinda quiet in here....

Persol

Name something dense enough that could be coming out the back to accelerate the object that fast, and not be detected.

An object that size would be unable to produce that much acceleration with the amount of fuel it would be able to hold.

These comments assume the "craft" is restricted to using jet propulsion. Exotic technologies may have other means of energy storage and conversion. The hypothetical "zero point energy" devices would fit the bill quite nicely.

Question to all...

Why is it assumed that IF these "craft" are man made then they must belong to the US governments black project division? Why are other countries ruled out? Japan, Russia, China and many other smaller rich nations have equivalent tech to the US. Go live in Japan for a year, it may open your eyes. The US are NOT world leaders in every aspect of tech.

Wouldn't it make more sense that the reason the US government denies the existance of UFOs is because they are not theirs but someone elses and they dont want to cause panic by admitting it?

Japan said it would never use the bomb, you think they havent tried to develop alternatives? God only knows what toys the Russians have developed...

And you expect me to assume that the rest agrees with the ET hypothesis? Why

quite simple. the official conclusion was formed from all available data. the official conclusion accepted the possibilty of et origin. it ruled out common terrestrial phenomena as causes. that is how it works. to think otherwise would be to insinuate that the belgian govt has an agenda and had made selective use of the data to push a ufo hypthesis. in essence the belgian govt is a front for a ufology org. i am sure you can see how outrageous that line of reasoning is. there has to be a limit in the smear campaign.

i am beginining to think even a state of the union speech that acknowledges ufo's will be inadequate. the denial is such that an alien will have to walk into each and every one's home and exchange business cards.

less complicated and more likely options are not ruled out?

such as?
please take into account the belgian analysis and explanation.
for instance do not say "balloon"!

and so it shall be. since the pseudo skeptics are unable to provide a productive critique of the et hypothesis in the belgian flap, lemme give it a shot and see we can rule out terrestrial stuff

Well, you asked for it. 'Balloon'! Or anything else that would cause a radar image. As for pilots seeing lights below them, well there are plenty of reports that have turned out to be terrestrial light sources, that appear to be moving in the darkness.

The problem lies in that this all rests on a 10 year old document, written in a foreign language, translated by 'who knows'. I can't even find any references to the professor who analyzed the photos (the only part that screams craft to me). An analysis of the photos/video (by somebody who actually does this type of analysis) are the way to go. If you can show me this, you have me that it is actually a solid object up there.

As for the movements, I'm still doubtful of it... for reasons I've previously pointed out. (location discrepencies, the inability of almost all pilots to accurately judge the position and velocity of another plane in relation to the ground at high speed) This is where radar tracking would come in handy.

The experimental LoFLYTE aircraft will be used to explore new flight control techniques involving neural networks, which allow the aircraft control system to learn by mimicking the pilot.

The model is a Mach 5 waverider design -- a futuristic hypersonic aircraft configuration that actually cruises on top of its own shockwave. Waverider aircraft, powered by airbreathing hypersonic engines, would fly at speeds above Mach 4. LoFLYTE represents the first known flying waverider vehicle configuration, but upcoming flight tests at NASA's Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, CA, will be flown only at low subsonic speeds to explore take-off and landing control issues.

The waverider was chosen as the testbed for the neural networks because the configuration has an inherently high hypersonic lift-to-drag ratio. If neural networks can control this "worst-case scenario" configuration, then they should be able to handle virtually any other configuration. The waverider configuration was also chosen because it allows for long hypersonic cruise ranges of up to 8,000 miles. At an altitude of 90,000 feet, a Mach 5 waverider would fly at a rate of one mile per second.

NASA HQ Public Affairs Office (http://www.qadas.com/qadas/nasa/nasa-hm/0572.html)

loflyte (http://www.accurate-automation.com/Technology/Loflyte/loflyte.html)

image (http://www.accurate-automation.com/Technology/Loflyte/real.jpg)

http://www.qtm.net/~geibdan/triangle/a12up.jpg (http://www.qtm.net/~geibdan/triangle/)



The Triangle, which flies over New Mexico nightly, has these characteristics
1. Flies maneuvers with F-117s (USAF)_
2. Uses same range as C-130 laser bed aircraft (USAF)
3. Flies Silent (except climbing in altitude, then it makes quiet "jet" noise)
4. Has 4 circular convex ports on undercarriage (VTOL thrust ports)*
5. Can travel at very slow speeds
6. White strobes and normal aircraft lights
7. Flies training missions nightly (recently in 2000, with an attack helicopter)
8. Sharp wing tips under night vision viewing
9. Entire aircraft glow
*Layout of triangle's ports matches position of Harrier's 4 vertical exhaust ports

Dan,

*click pic for link

a12 cancelled (http://www.habu2.net/a12/avenger2.htm)

Not much has been released about the Avenger II, no doubt due to the lawsuits that followed the government's cancellation of the production contract. Virtually everything was destroyed in the aftermath - both data and jobs.

indeedly doodly. they moved it underground and are making incredible progress

*cancelled or not?:confused:

The A-12 was never finished. The pictures you see in this page are of a full scale model, built out of wood, not an actual operational prototype.

The famous "Black Triangle" ufos do not match the looks of the A12. The general shape is not the same, the size is not the same, the color is not the same, the texture is not the same, the lights under the "Black Triangle" type of ufo do not match with anything on the A-12. The only common feature is the global triangle shape as seen from a top view, if you disregard the testimonies who make clear that the black triangle ufos have cut edges.

The performances of the A12 have nothing to do with the performances of "Black Trianle" ufos as measured by radar on several occasions. The A12 cannot hover, or fly at the speed of a bicycle at 50 meters altitude, or have 40G acceleration when chased.

The "Black Triangle" ufos appear sometimes over cities of countries such as Belgium, or near civilian airports, or in agricultural countryside of Mexico. A secret aircraft of the US would never be sent in such era. This is also the position of the USAF and US Navy.

The interest of "stealth" aircraft such as the A-12 is to escape radar detection. On the contrary, "Black Triangle" ufos and other types of ufos are detected by military radars of numerous countries, this is what lead them to take the ufo topic seriously, since radar recordings are physical evidences.

UFOS ARE NOT A-12 (http://www.chez.com/lesovnis/htm/a12.htm)

NIDS researchers contend that these type vehicles are lighter-than-air, blimp-style craft of the U.S. military's making. Likely powered by "electrokinetic" drive, the lifting body-shaped airships have been skirting the skies from perhaps the early to mid 1980s.

Among a range of NIDS observations, the group believes the BBDs are powered by electrokinetic/field drives, or airborne nuclear power units. These craft also fly at extreme altitudes, high above conventional aircraft and the pulsing of ground-based traffic control radar.

Elecrokinetic propulsion means that no propellers or jets are used. A hybrid lighter-than-air craft would rely on aerostatic, lift gas, like a balloon. No helicopter-like downwash would be produced. Except for a slight humming from high-voltage control equipment -- and in older BBD versions an occasional coronal discharge -- a Big Black Delta makes no noise.

Given a slew of BBD capabilities -- from silent running, diminished drag, elimination of sonic shockwaves, to operation from ground level to full vacuum -- NIDS calls for pushing this black world technology out into daylight for commercial benefit.

The BBDs have been seen accelerating very rapidly from a hovering position. "They can look as though they are leaping across the sky. Being silent, it's almost spooky," Kelleher said.


Investigation Casts Light on the Mysterious Flying Black Triangle (http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/black_triangle_020805.html)

the pseudo skeptic jab is just useless rhetoric. ignore please. i value your input

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.

In regards to inertia, how do complex beings survive near instantaneous accelerations and decelerations and sharp turns to thousands of k's per hour?

when the ufo is observed to accelerate beyond the speed of sound, there is no associated sonic boom

Objects cannot move through the atmosphere at those speeds without creating a sonic boom, a direct result of the Doppler Effect:

http://www.gmi.edu/~drussell/Demos/doppler/doppler.html

Someone mentioned propellants and why none could be detected.

In regards to Newtons third law, an object could not be made to move without forcing some other object in the opposite direction.

Q,

Why can't you fathom a technology above our own?

The velocity & manueverability of these vehicles is what makes most of us consider the ET hypothesis. Since you disregard the entire event because of impossible(by our standards) speeds, it's quite obvious that you're incapable of thinking outside of the box.

This thread is a good example of the kind of lack of critical thinking which so typically characterises believers that UFOs represent alien spacecraft. The problem is not that the believers concoct stories or invent facts, but more that they draw unreasonable conclusions from the agreed facts. They also fail to question the accuracy of disputable facts, instead preferring to uncritically adopt the interpretation which best supports their prejudice that UFOs must be alien objects.

In the present case, we have some recorded sightings of <i>something</i>, along with radar observations and so on. But it doesn't take long at all to go from that to a detailed discussion of "vehicles" and unknown technologies. The problem is that an assumption is made very early on, and conclusions are drawn which are not actually mandated by the data. To show you what I mean, I will extract a few quotes from recent posts.

In addition, <b>spookz</b> has attempted to ridicule the people who dare to question his conclusion. He asks:

<i>perhaps you wanna the president to sign off on the doc? the un? you? perhaps we got have the mighty jamesr as the final arbiter of all things?</i>

No, spookz, I'm not the arbiter of all things. It's much simpler than that. You see, I am willing to suspend judgment on this information until there is data which points us inevitably towards one conclusion or another. You, and the other believers, want to prejudge the case and jump to the conclusion that these observations represent alien spacecraft. I have said before that argument from authority is a very weak form of argument, but apparently you missed that. I don't care what the President believes regarding this data. What I want is not somebody in authority to tell me what to believe, but good enough data to be able to draw my own conclusion.

<b>spookz</b> writes:
<i>it is interesting how the belgian airforce is held to be incompetent in order to support argument for a prosaic explanation. radar operators/pilots/analysts competence is held to be questionable. it is simple arrogance and denial.</i>

I don't think anybody has suggested that the Belgian airforce is incompetent, so this is a straw man argument. What I <i>have</i> suggested is that people can sometimes make mistakes, which is a different thing altogether.

<b>VRob</b> writes:
<i>The evidence has been layed out.

1. Multiple radar detections.
2. Visual sighting from the ground and from the air.</i>

Yes, something was seen and detected. We don't know what. And that's what makes your next statement problematic:

<i>3. Vehicle performance that our current level of technology considers to be impossible.</i>

How do we know we're dealing with a vehicle here? Where's the evidence of that? You and the other believers are making a very big jump in going from lights in the sky to vehicles.

<i>4. A genuine Government of this planet providing the facts. Not some UFO web sit, or organization.</i>

Governments consist of people. They are not infallible.

<i>Facts:
There was a vehicle in the Air over Belgium.
It performs manuevers unknown to our technology.
The only question remains is who's vehicle is it. Ours, or theirs.</i>

No. You're getting way ahead of yourself. The skeptics are stuck back at "There was a vehicle...", while you've accepted that and moved on to speculate on where the aliens come from. It's not just you - this kind of logical leap is typical of UFO believers.

<i>Stating that it could be some unknown atmospheric phenomena is as rediculous as the UFO kooks who scream UFO everytime they see a bird or a plane in the air.</i>

Why ridiculous? What rules that out as a possible explanation, other than your own prejudice? Trying to belittle those who disagree with you is also a logically invalid method of argument, since it appeals to emotion rather than fact.

<i> think our Mililtary would be much more likely to test an experimental craft over foreign ground than they would over an American city.

It's much easier for them to maintain control of the information that comes from an overseas report.</i>

Think about this for a minute. Are you serious? Do you think that the US government has more control over the foreign press than over their own press? What a strange thought.
----

Next, we have another side of the UFO believer psyche - the conspiracy theorist, as demonstrated by <b>Ives</b>:

<i>Remember, our government is not what it seems. In the 50s, we were spraying our own cities with biological agents to test germ warfare capabilities, giving LSD to servicemen and committing other attrocities. Today we incarcerate people without lawyers or trials, or even charges. The government asks mail carriers to spy on us, and wishes to track which websites we visit. We have a vice president continuing to receive income from a large corporation receiving preferential treatment in a bidding process for rebuilding a country which we bombed, yet we pretend this isn't obviously crooked on its face.</i>

...and therefore any light in the sky must be an alien spaceship which the government is covering up. Give me a break.

<b>ScRaMbLe</b> is quick to jump on this bandwagon...

<i>Wouldn't it make more sense that the reason the US government denies the existance of UFOs is because they are not theirs but someone elses and they dont want to cause panic by admitting it?

Japan said it would never use the bomb, you think they havent tried to develop alternatives? God only knows what toys the Russians have developed...</i>

Yes, the US is not really the only superpower left in the world today. Other countries are secretly much more advanced, even though they never show it. And the US government, instead of telling people or trying to gain the technology via espionage or by diplomatic or trade efforts, keeps it under wraps.

<b>VRob</b> takes another jab at the skeptics:

<i>Why can't you fathom a technology above our own?</i>

Obviously, if such a technology existed, we would be working in the dark. It would be like showing a digital watch to somebody from the 17th century and asking them to provide a possible explanation for its workings, all without actually allowing them to open it up or examine it in any way except superficially.

If we gained access to more advanced technology, I'm sure it wouldn't take too long to reverse engineer it. But we're unlikely to develop an interstellar drive, if such a thing exists, by examining lights in the sky.

<i>The velocity & manueverability of these vehicles is what makes most of us consider the ET hypothesis. Since you disregard the entire event because of impossible(by our standards) speeds, it's quite obvious that you're incapable of thinking outside of the box.</i>

There's the assumption again - two assumptions actually. First, that we are talking about "vehicles" here, which is a logical leap. Second, that anybody who asks sensible questions must be closed-minded and ignorant.

It seems the UFO believers have an axe to grind with the skeptics. Apparently, it is wrong to ask questions. Instead, we are supposed to accept without question any wacky conclusion the UFOlogist wants to throw our way.

In the present case, we have some recorded sightings of <i>something</i>, along with radar observations and so on. But it doesn't take long at all to go from that to a detailed discussion of "vehicles" and unknown technologies. The problem is that an assumption is made very early on, and conclusions are drawn which are not actually mandated by the data. To show you what I mean, I will extract a few quotes from recent posts.

i see nothing wrong with speculation. if however, speculation is passed off as a definitive conclusion, there is a problem. i considered all angles and even rated them in terms of probability (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=486966#post486966). if i tend to favor one over the other, that is my right. i will not try to justify it on logical and evidentiary grounds. it is a personal preference.

you will kill off this forum if we adhere to your high standards. (yes i noticed your sig)

there is nothing wrong with considering all possible scenarios no matter how farfetched. i am not posting in sciforums under any official capacity

In addition, <b>spookz</b> has attempted to ridicule the people who dare to question his conclusion. He asks:

<i>perhaps you wanna the president to sign off on the doc? the un? you? perhaps we got have the mighty jamesr as the final arbiter of all things?(spookz)</i>

thas is in direct response to...

Originally posted by James R
However, nobody has yet pointed me towards a definitive government report of the outcome of investigations, or similar source.

why are you asking this. if i had access to the entire sobebs report i would have given it. summaries, conclusions and other various commentaries taken from and on the report are provided. look at the conclusion reached by the belgians...

Could the Air Force have done more? Undoubtedly, but only in terms of a particular effort with more means and personnel. Let us not forget that the UFO phenomenon emerges at unforeseeable places and times. The implementation of a tight network of observers, special optical glasses, infra-red cameras, means of communication, helicopters and planes would have required an enormous financial effort. Such an effort cannot be justified without the proof that there are indeed flying objects which could constitute a possible threat for the population and the air traffic or which is really of extraterrestrial origin. The dilemma is as follows: how can these UFO be identified without the engagement of additional means whereas such an identification is the indispensable condition to justify their engagement. The day will undoubtedly come where the phenomenon will be observed with technological means of detection and recording which will not leave any doubt as of its origin. This should raise part of the veil which covers the mystery for a long time. A mystery which thus remains whole. But it exists, it is real, and this is already an important conclusion. Postface to the SOBEPS report, by Général De Brouwer (at that time Colonel, joint Chief of Staff of the Belgium Air Forces) (http://www.chez.com/lesovnis/htm/beldbp.htm)

all these people are saying (in an official capacity) is that a ufo was observed (visual, video and radar). the final analysis was inconclusive. i believe some go on to speculate off the record about various scenarios just as we are doing here. the belgians have come to the only possible conclusion that is in adherence with the scientific method. why are you knocking it? they are rapping to your tune! you have to assume that the data in the sections that we are not privy also support the conclusion. that is... there is nothing there that identifies the origins of the ufo

No, spookz, I'm not the arbiter of all things. It's much simpler than that. You see, I am willing to suspend judgment on this information until there is data which points us inevitably towards one conclusion or another. You, and the other believers, want to prejudge the case and jump to the conclusion that these observations represent alien spacecraft. I have said before that argument from authority is a very weak form of argument, but apparently you missed that. I don't care what the President believes regarding this data. What I want is not somebody in authority to tell me what to believe, but good enough data to be able to draw my own conclusion.

fair enough. my most sincere apologies for that unwarranted crap. however, in all honesty, i do not know for sure what the ufo is. neither have i jumped to any definite conclusion.

I don't think anybody has suggested that the Belgian airforce is incompetent, so this is a straw man argument. What I <i>have</i> suggested is that people can sometimes make mistakes, which is a different thing altogether.

james, that was directed at persol in response to something he posted

First, the screenshots do not provide any information to determine if this was a real contact. This could be clouds, radar echos, malfunction, whatever... (persol)

there are two ground stations and 2 jets tracking object with radar. i find that redundant enough

It seems the UFO believers have an axe to grind with the skeptics. Apparently, it is wrong to ask questions. Instead, we are supposed to accept without question any wacky conclusion the UFOlogist wants to throw our way. (james)

way too dramatic james. chill please. i'll tone down the rhetoric.

Originally posted by James R
The only conclusion I can reach at this point is that the matter is unexplained. I see no evidence of extraterrestrial visitation, and even if all the facts are perfectly accurate, there are other, more prosaic, explanations (e.g. secret US testing of advanced aircraft).

do i not explore this option? quite the fanatical believer aint i?:D

Originally posted by Ives
Interesting thread. I have to say I've always had a feeling that the "flying triangles" of recent years were ours, although I certainly can't quantify that.

Originally posted by James R
...and therefore any light in the sky must be an alien spaceship which the government is covering up. Give me a break.


your quote refers to ives. comment please.
(i recall getting quite annoyed at ives acceptance of a "prosaic explanation")

*there is quicksand ahead;)

Spookz - I pointed out 3 physical laws allegedly observed in your report. Can you explain these discrepancies?

Rob

Why can't you fathom a technology above our own?

So, each time someone reports a UFO breaking physical laws and thinks it’s ET, I’m supposed to simply and unquestionably imagine a technology that can do it.

Where else would you like my imagination to lead me?
:rolleyes:

Originally posted by (Q)
Spookz - I pointed out 3 physical laws allegedly observed in your report. Can you explain these discrepancies?
================================================

Well, I'm not Spookz, but I'll take a stab at it.

by Q;
Someone mentioned propellants and why none could be detected.

In regards to Newtons third law, an object could not be made to move without forcing some other object in the opposite direction.

me:
Newton's third law only requires a force, not a propellant, like
magnetic, electromagnetic or gravitational. Dark energy, which I
believe has been accepted by mainstream science, has repulsive
qualities that exceed gravitational attraction on the universal scale.
A repulsive force seems to be theoretically possible, with no propellant discharge.
================================================
by Q;
when the ufo is observed to accelerate beyond the speed of sound, there is no associated sonic boom

Objects cannot move through the atmosphere at those speeds without creating a sonic boom, a direct result of the Doppler Effect:

me:
Q, I cannot believe you said a sonic boom was a direct result of
the Doppler Effect. Perhaps you just misspoke. A sonic boom is the
result of a pressure wave. I did read an article a few months ago in
which the sonic boom was greatly reduced by simply altering the
shape of an aircraft's nosecone. Contary to what might seem logical, more blunt and rounded leading edges reduced sonic boom,
rounding the rear also reduced it. Paul Hill devotes a chapter in his
book explaining how a plasma field generated around a vehicle
could nullify a sonic boom. He has photos taken from his equipment
at NASA to show the effect. Two or three years ago, an article by
some Russian scientists were boasting how they had a superior
stealth technology than the US, as theirs was based on a device
placed inside the plane to generate a plasma field giving stealth
effects. They said the generator only weighed less than two
hundred pounds (or maybe kilograms, I don't remember now) and
could be used on planes constructed of ordinary materials. I don't
know if the claims are true, but I did not read it on a "UFO" site.
=============================================

by Q;
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.

In regards to inertia, how do complex beings survive near instantaneous accelerations and decelerations and sharp turns to thousands of k's per hour?
===============================================

me:
A couple of points here. The accelerations are not instantaneous,
but ARE very rapid. You are assuming a complex being is piloting
the UFO. It could possibly be an advanced UAV of earthly orgin
using advanced propulsion technologies. It could possibly be a
probe of some type operated by artificial intelligence sent from
another planet or even from our own distant future. If a being
were inside the UFO, speculation would dictate that it was protected from the effects of inertia somehow. Would a vehicle
surrounded by a plasma of negative energy (dark energy) protect
its occupants from the effects of inertia? I would not think so, but
how would I know for certain? I do believe an interstellar craft
containing living beings would require a much higher level of
technology than one operated by AI. Sometimes, a theory has to
be altered or developed to explain an observation. Much more
information is needed before a theory can be developed, but that
does not allow denial of a well documented observation. Observation of apparent superluminal galaxies is an example, are
they really receding faster than light or is there another explaination? Knowledge is advanced in this manner, often leading
to unexpected results.

by James R:

In the present case, we have some recorded sightings of something , along with radar observations and so on. But it doesn't take long at all to go from that to a detailed discussion of "vehicles" and unknown technologies. The problem is that an assumption is made very early on, and conclusions are drawn which are not actually mandated by the data.
==============================================

To start with, James, I have great respect for your even-tempered
responses and your intelligence. I do believe, however, that like
many physicists your standards of proof can be exceedingly high
for something out of the mainstream. Does that 17th century scientist
get to deny the existance of the digital watch he was shown, but
not allowed to examine? Of course he can, but that does not mean
it does not exist because he couldn't explain how it worked. The
question is, is there enough evidence to reasonably assume the
Belgian UFO to be a "vehicle." I think the evidence points to that
assumption. Radar contact from different ground locations, both
Belgian military and NATO, and radar contact from the chase planes
themselves, all placing the object in the same location. Eyewitness
sightings from many observers at different locations, by highly
credible witnesses, reporting they saw a triangle shaped object.
There are video tapes available of the UFO, also showing a triangle
shaped object. Many attempts were made to record the object
with film-based cameras, but the film was fogged in each instance.
Very unusual flight patterns were noted by ground observers and
radar recordings, not considered possible with chemical based
engines, such as the extreme accelerations. I find it difficult not to
assume it was a vehicle of some type. Video of the object eliminates atmospheric phenomena, such as ball lightning and
swamp gas. I do not know how to record "silent operation" on
video tape, but all eyewitness accounts stated it made no noise
as a jet engined vehicle would be expected to do. I would therefore assume it to be a vehicle with an unconventional power
source. Beyond that, who knows? Care to explain why the evidence is lacking for this assumption and
give your reasons for discounting what is available? Thanks.

Originally posted by James R
I am willing to suspend judgment on this information until there is data which points us inevitably towards one conclusion or another. You, and the other believers, want to prejudge the case and jump to the conclusion that these observations represent alien spacecraft.

James, I don't think anyone has jumped to the ET hypothesis. The evidence has been layed out and the only 2 conclusions I can come up with are the VEHICLE is either of this earth, or not. I really don't think another conclusion is viable.

How do we know we're dealing with a vehicle here? Where's the evidence of that? You and the other believers are making a very big jump in going from lights in the sky to vehicles.

This is far from lights in the sky.

We have multiple ground radar confirmation.

We have mulitple Air based radar confirmation.

We have multiple ground sightings.

We have the pilots of the Belgian aircraft sighting the object.

I don't see how anyone can dispute the idea that an actual vehicle was in the air in this incident.


MEIt's much easier for them to maintain control of the information that comes from an overseas report.

JAMES[/i]Think about this for a minute. Are you serious? Do you think that the US government has more control over the foreign press than over their own press? What a strange thought.
----

Not strange at all. You're actually misunderstanding my comments. I never said it would be easier for them to control foreign press. What I said, was it would be easier for them to control the information from getting to the American Press. If you think this isn't done at times, you haven't been paying attention.

Next, we have another side of the UFO believer psyche - the conspiracy theorist, as demonstrated by <b>Ives</b>:

Now this is just a shot James. It's a documented fact that conspiracies have been a common occurence regarding our Government.


...and therefore any light in the sky must be an alien spaceship which the government is covering up. Give me a break.

I still haven't seen anyone state this is the final conclusion. Why do the skeptics keep trying to put this comment into our words?

Tooey

Sorry, but you did exactly the same thing that Rob suggested; you allowed your imagination to conjure up a technology that breaks physical laws. And it appears you do not understand the laws that I mentioned.

Anyone else?

James, I don't think anyone has jumped to the ET hypothesis. The evidence has been layed out and the only 2 conclusions I can come up with are the VEHICLE is either of this earth, or not.

You just contradicted yourself.

perhaps it is time that you mustered up some courage and give me your version of events. you have done nothing here except troll!

get specific. deal with all aspects of the case.

you have done nothing here except troll!

Resorting to ad hominem? You are getting desperate again.

What I have done is point out three physical laws that were allegedly broken that you most likely do not understand and cannot explain. And, I can point out others however it appears that is unnecessary at this time since you can’t get past those.

My work is finished here.

:cool:

actually no. not quite finished. since you hold that these physical laws cannot be broken, what is your verdict on the events that unfolded in belgium.

muster up some courage and stop beating around the bush

In regards to inertia, how do complex beings survive near instantaneous accelerations and decelerations and sharp turns to thousands of k's per hour?

as in humans? impossible. you make the assumption that the ufo is manned. why?

iwhen the ufo is observed to accelerate beyond the speed of sound, there is no associated sonic boom.

tricky tho nasa (http://www.sonicbooms.org/ForumPresentations/AIAA2000_1011.doc) is working on it. it looks rather unspectacular tho

Someone mentioned propellants and why none could be detected.

here is your mo

Equate nature's laws with our current understanding of nature's laws. Then label all concepts such as antigravity or interdimensional mobility as mere flights of fancy "because what present-day science cannot explain cannot possibly exist." Then if an anomalous craft is reported to have hovered silently, made right-angle turns at supersonic speeds or appeared and disappeared instantly, you may summarily dismiss the report. (dresin)

My work here is finished :cool:

you appear to have the emotional development of a retard. however if the ego demands it, declare victory as much as you want. i refuse to acknowledge it. sorry. you allude that the events never happened. that is pathological. seek help

Originally posted by (Q)
What I have done is point out three physical laws that were allegedly broken that you most likely do not understand and cannot explain. And, I can point out others however it appears that is unnecessary at this time since you can’t get past those.

My work is finished here.

Don't you mean Physical laws AS FAR AS WE KNOW?

You really do think we already have everything figured out don't you Q? Do you really think Jet Propullsion is the pinnacle of movement.

IMO, you are making the argument that this incident can't be real because the data doesn't fit into your box is reality. That's the same as the moron's who claim they can't get here from there because the distances are too great.

You can't put our KNOWN technology on a race that may be a million years more advanced than we are. Do you really think we'll be using the same means of propulsion in 1,000 years? How about 10,000?

Q, If you're going to respond to my post by addressing one sentence, please answer each of the questions I posed to you.

Keep your arguments as abstract and theoretical as possible. This will "send the message" that accepted theory overrides any actual evidence that might challenge it--and that therefore no such evidence is worth examining.

Avoid examining the actual evidence. This allows you to say with impunity, "I have seen absolutely no evidence to support such ridiculous claims!" (Note that this technique has withstood the test of time, and dates back at least to the age of Galileo. By simply refusing to look through his telescope, the ecclesiastical authorities bought the Church over three centuries' worth of denial free and clear!

check the thread. james and persol show some courage unlike this clown.

Originally posted by (Q)
Tooey

Sorry, but you did exactly the same thing that Rob suggested; you allowed your imagination to conjure up a technology that breaks physical laws. And it appears you do not understand the laws that I mentioned.

Anyone else?
========================================

OK, QQ, since you are pathetically claiming victory, I'll be more specific.
I was trying to avoid highlighting your lack of knowledge before.

by Q:
Someone mentioned propellants and why none could be detected.

In regards to Newtons third law, an object could not be made to move without forcing some other object in the opposite direction.
me:
Movement without a chemical propellant breaks Newton's third law? :rolleyes:
============================================

by Q:

Objects cannot move through the atmosphere at those speeds without creating a sonic boom, a direct result of the Doppler Effect:
me:
This is my favorite. So, the law of the Doppler Effect was broken,
huh?
:D
============================================

by Q:

In regards to inertia, how do complex beings survive near instantaneous accelerations and decelerations and sharp turns to thousands of k's per hour?

me:
This thread was asking if UFO's break the laws of physics. Hint:
unidentified flying OBJECT. Sturdy OBJECTS can survive 40g accelerations. When you place a biological being on that object,
you are raising the bar. Given YOUR speculation, the issue is much
more complex, requiring speculation on emerging and not yet
fully understood physics.

Originally posted by (Q)
Rob

Why can't you fathom a technology above our own?

So, each time someone reports a UFO breaking physical laws and thinks it’s ET, I’m supposed to simply and unquestionably imagine a technology that can do it.

Where else would you like my imagination to lead me?
:rolleyes:

Why must you add so much to everyone's posts each time you respond? In fact, you never seem to answer any questions directed towards you. You only address the rubish you yourself have added when responding.

Where did I ever say anything about 'EACH TIME'? I thought we were talking about this one incident here. The Belgian incident.

These physical laws you stand by are only our physical laws based on what we know so far. They are by no means final.

I'll ask once again. Do you really think we are at the pinnacle when it comes to propulsion methods?

These physical laws you stand by are only our physical laws based on what we know so far. They are by no means final.

That is ridiculous. I don’t think you know what you’re talking about. If you did, you would realize that the universe and not our understanding of them govern physical laws.

Those that I have pointed out so far lead one to the conclusion that the report is bogus. Something may have happened but not to the extent of what was allegedly reported.

The ‘flap’ is crap.

you would realize that the universe and not our understanding of them govern physical laws. (q)

the universe governs physical laws! heh. obviously coming unhinged. causation gone mad!

:D

wes could have a field day with this crap

Originally posted by (Q)
Those that I have pointed out so far lead one to the conclusion that the report is bogus. Something may have happened but not to the extent of what was allegedly reported


Those that I have pointed out so far lead one to the conclusion that the report is bogus.

there! q's analysis has finally arrived
:D

one of the better ufo incidents bites the dust
:D

Originally posted by (Q)
These physical laws you stand by are only our physical laws based on what we know so far. They are by no means final.

That is ridiculous. I don’t think you know what you’re talking about. If you did, you would realize that the universe and not our understanding of them govern physical laws.

I can see that I worded this comment wrong.

How's this Q,

These physical laws you stand by are based only on our UNDERSTANDING of these physical laws.

You say that Light speed is impossible to overcome for an object.... well, maybe today with our prehistoric methods. But there are no laws that say it can't be overcome in the future.

You say that Light speed is impossible to overcome for an object.... well, maybe today with our prehistoric methods. But there are no laws that say it can't be overcome in the future.

You just don’t get it. The universe, NOT us, governs the physical laws. Some of those laws are physical limitations placed on the universe while others are physical constants.

The universe isn’t some traffic court in which you come in to plead a speeding ticket.

Originally posted by (Q)
You just don’t get it. The universe, NOT us, governs the physical laws.

No, It is you who doesn't get it.

We are not a civilized world. Our number one pasttime is WAR. Yet you assume we already have all the answers.

What I'm questioning is our understanding of the rules that govern the Universe. NOT THE ABSOLUTE PHYSICAL LAWS!

Q, we know very little about the Universe, yet you continue to make absolutes about it based on our miniscule knowledged.

Q, we know very little about the Universe, yet you continue to make absolutes about it based on our miniscule knowledged.

Actually, it’s clear you don’t know what you’re talking about nor do you know anything about the physics you’re so willing to denounce.

Originally posted by (Q)
Actually, it’s clear you don’t know what you’re talking about nor do you know anything about the physics you’re so willing to denounce.

Please enlighten me then Q.

Tell me about all the indesputed facts we have on our Universe.

You must be one of those who believe all those stars were put up into the sky for our amusement. We are the only rock with life on it in this vast universe.

A Billion Galaxies.

With Each Galaxy containing a Billion Stars, most just like our own sun.

With more and more information we accumulate, we're finding that planetary systems around these stars are the norm rather than the exception.

YET, we're all alone! :bugeye:

Please enlighten me then Q.

I don't have the time to teach high school kids who refuse to learn anything.

Try reading a book for a change.

LOL,

High School. Don't I wish.

/we know very little about the Universe, yet you continue to make absolutes about it based on our miniscule knowledged.

it seems to me that you don't know enough about what "we" know about the universe to really make that statement.

in a sense you're right, but what is unknown is unknown, so you can't say how miniscule or how expansive our knowledge is. could be that Q is right. maybe not. hard to say, given that it is unknown eh?

/we know very little about the Universe, yet you continue to make absolutes about it based on our miniscule knowledged.

it seems to me that you don't know enough about what "we" know about the universe to really make that statement.

in a sense you're right, but what is unknown is unknown, so you can't say how miniscule or how expansive our knowledge is. could be that Q is right. maybe not. hard to say, given that it is unknown eh?

it is important to note however, that Q's assertions (einsteins stuff, like e=mc^2) has experimental evidence backing it up. do you have any verifiable experimental evidence to support your assertion of "how much we know about the universe"?

could be that Q is right. maybe not. hard to say, given that it is unknown eh?

he might be right , he might be wrong

it is important to note however, that Q's assertions (einsteins stuff, like e=mc^2) has experimental evidence backing it up.

now he is right

could you list these "assertions" please? i looked around in thread but am not sure too what you refer to

/he might be right , he might be wrong

agreed.

/it is important to note however, that Q's assertions (einsteins stuff, like e=mc^2) has experimental evidence backing it up.

/now he is right

experimental evidence may not be inclusive of all possibilities. however, there it is demonstrated valid within a commonly accepted context. why do you assume that this means I say "he is right"?

/could you list these "assertions" please? i looked around in thread but am not sure too what you refer to

mainly that the effects of relativistic mass can be verified, so his statement (paraphrasing)"an object of positive mass cannot travel the speed of light, which is based on the concept of relativisitic mass, has testable, reproducable merit.

This is article concerning the confusion between invariant mass
and relativistic mass that I read months ago. It is very informative.
""Ouch! The concept of `relativistic mass' is subject to misunderstanding. That's why we don't use it. First, it applies the name mass--belonging to the magnitude of a four-vector--to a very different concept, the time component of a four-vector. Second, it makes increase of energy of an object with velocity or momentum appear to be connected with some change in internal structure of the object. In reality, the increase of energy with velocity originates not in the object but in the geometric properties of space-time itself."

In the final analysis the issue is a debate over whether or not relativistic mass should be used, and is a matter of semantics and teaching methods. The concept of relativistic mass is not wrong: it can have its uses in special relativity at an elementary level. This debate surfaced in Physics Today in 1989 when Lev Okun wrote an article urging that relativistic mass should no longer be taught (42 #6, June 1989, pg 31). Wolfgang Rindler responded with a letter to the editors to defend its continued use. (43 #5, May 1990, pg 13).

The experience of answering confused questions in the news groups suggests that the use of relativistic mass in popular books and elementary texts is not helpful. The fact that relativistic mass is virtually never used in contemporary scientific research literature is a strong argument against teaching it to students who will go on to more advanced levels. Invariant mass proves to be more fundamental in Minkowski's geometric approach to special relativity, and relativistic mass is of no use at all in general relativity. It is possible to avoid relativistic mass from the outset by talking of energy instead. Judging by usage in modern text books, the consensus is that relativistic mass is an outdated concept which is best avoided. There are people who still want to use relativistic mass, and it is not easy to settle an argument over semantic issues because there is no absolute right or wrong; just conventions of terminology. There will always be those who post questions using terms in which mass increases with velocity. It is unhelpful to just tell them that what they read or heard on cable TV is wrong, but it might reduce confusion for them in the longer term if they can be persuaded to think in terms of invariant mass instead of relativistic mass."
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/mass.html

So is that an attempt to assert that this purported confusion is relevant to this thread? If so, please be specific as how you think it was misused. Otherwise your post seems eronious.

tooey

That is a very good article - it somewhat explains the confusion behind using the term 'relativistic mass.'

Originally posted by wesmorris
So is that