the belgian flap 1989 - the skeptical analysis (1)

james

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. 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...

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)

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

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

james

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

*there is quicksand ahead

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

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?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

================================================

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.

 

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

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

 

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?

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 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

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

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

 

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.

 

more of q's mo

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.

 

========================================

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?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

============================================

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?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

============================================

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.

 

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.