By whom?
Please supply a source for the quote. Then read this, from my link above:
During the Belgian UFO saga many people observed strange triangular formations in the skies. Some captured them with video cameras. Mr. Alfarano, from Bruxelles, took the most famous one but it is generally unknown that he also claimed to be in telepathic contact with alien entities. Even the SOBEPS now admits that none of these films shows anything strange or inexplicable. Most of them depict ordinary aircraft lights in a triangular configuration.
If you had read the official Belgian Air Force report, you should have read its conclusion where it said there were
"sufficient elements to exclude following assumptions:"
Belgian Air Force Report Concludes What the UFO was Not
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.
Once again, three sources (
airborne and ground-based radars and
visual contacts) confirming the UFO
An Nevertheless, most of these people were convinced that they had seen the Belgian triangular UFO.
Let's take a look here and read from a report.
Belgian UFO Report
One of these bases was NATO controlled near the city of Glons, southeast of Brussels. After contacting other radar facilities, they learned that at least four other stations were also reporting the object on their screens. The object was moving across their screens slowly, and failed to send a transponder signal to identify itself.
Since multiple, dissimilar ground-based radars tracked the object the same time, we can rule out radar ghost angels.
Cont.
Two F-16s were ordered to intercept and identify this phenomena, and one of the jet's radars locked the object in. It appeared as a small diamond on the pilot's screen
The fact that both all-weather airborne radars of the F-16s tracked and locked the same object that was being tracked by ground-based radars was another clue the object was a flying craft and nothing to do with weather, as confirmed by the F-16 pilot on video.
From your link:
In these cases their testimonies could be checked by examination of the filmed images. What about all those cases in which witnesses claimed to have seen a UFO but weren’t fortunate enough to capture it on film? Is there any reason to accept that they saw something else than those who filmed ordinary aircrafts? In the absence of relevant data it is often very difficult or impossible to identify what people have seen. SOBEPS takes advantage of this ambiguous situation and concludes that all unexplained observations are related to real UFOs, probably from an extraterrestrial origin. This is unscientific.
Your link said "this is unscientific" after the Belgian Air Force and radar experts concluded that the object was real?!
One can also doubt about the personal qualifications of the numerous improvised investigators SOBEPS worked with. Some of them were so blinded by their beliefs in UFOs they couldn’t even see the most evident things. For example here is a drawing made by a witness and which was published in Inforespace 86 as a true UFO. The testimony and the drawing show evidently it was an ordinary helicopter.
Helicopters make a lot of noise. No noise was heard by the object. Read the reports. With thousands of witnesses, confirmed radar sightings, plane radar lock-ins, and military confirmations, the fact that an unknown craft moved across the country of Belgium cannot be denied.
Check it out.
Major P. Lambrechts explains at the inception that, "the observations both visual and by radar were of such nature, that it was decided to order the scramble of two F-16 aircraft with the goal of identifying these UFOs."
The report also indicates that "the presence or testing of B2 or F117 (Stealth Bomber), RPVs (Remotely Piloted Vehicles), ULMs (Ultra Light Motorized) and AWACS at the moment of these events in the Belgian airspace, can be excluded. "
Col. de Brouwer explained to Paris Match reporter Marie-Therese de Brosses, that the change of velocity from 280 KPM to 1,800 KPH while descending from 3,000 meters to 1,000 meters in one second, was a fantastic acceleration equivalent to 40 Gs.
Now, for a recap. A radar contact has been
positively observed, in correlation with different sensors of the Air Force (CRC, TCC, RAPCON, EBBE and F-16 radar), and this in the same area as visual observations. This has to be explained by the fact that the March 30-31 UFOs have been noticed at +/- 10000 feet altitude, whereas in the former cases there was always talk of visual contacts at very low altitude.
The UFOs, as soon as seen by the
F-16 radar in the "Target Track" mode (after interception), have drastically changed their parameters.
Those facts alone confirms an object was encountered over a long period of time and had nothing to do with weather nor radar malfunctions. This was a
radar/visual confirmation incident and yet there are skeptic websites that will try to pin the UFO as radar malfunctions or on atmospheric phenomena despite the official reports.
Professor Emile Schweitzer, one of Belgium’s leading radar experts examined the aircraft data and concluded that
these were real returns from real objects moving around the sky. One case recorded a craft doing a full speed sharp 90 degree angle turn upwards. If a craft moving in a normal Newtonian manner had tried doing such a thing, the acceleration (a turn a 30gs) would have instantly killed anybody inside the craft. Schweitzer concluded that
he didn’t know how that could have been done with the then currently “known” level of technology. Schweitzer was asked to meet with MoD officials and a video interview was recorded with him.
