the belgian flap 1989 - the skeptical analysis (1)

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!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

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.

 

james

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?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

look at the sites provided.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

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?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

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

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

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.

 

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

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

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

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

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

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

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.

 

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.