• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Happy 70th UFO Anniversary!

skyeagle409 said:
From experience, I know what we have, and what we don't have in the way of aircraft shapes and performance capabilities and I have also been aware of many radar/visual encounters involving pilots, which in some cases, had resulted in the loss of pilots and aircraft.

The data I have posted is very clear that the UFOs were not ours based on the fact we have no such performance capabilities as of today. In other words, we don't have large aircraft capable of conducting 40+ G maneuvers and stay intact or fly through the atmosphere at 9000 mph and not generate a sonic boom.
Click to expand...
Why do all these alien craft have such different capabilities.
 
skyeagle409 said:
I wouldn't say a bug in front of a camera. You might want to run that by engineers and scientist who observed saucers firsthand. After all, one team observed saucers hovering some 200 miles altitude above earth and I have supplied that report along with others as well.

Is this a bug in this video?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aS4GYJtVqkY
Click to expand...
In this vid there are no bugs. A likely explanation is these moving spots are bits of stuff near our spacecraft.
 
skyeagle409 said:
I am on the record for stating that the majority of UFO sightings can be explained with down-to-earth explanations, but the reports that I am interested in are the radar/visual reports such as the Bariloch UFO encounter where the UFO flew along side the airliner as passengers in the plane and observers on the ground watched. The UFO forced the pilot to conduct a missed approach on final to the airport. the city was also blacked out as the UFO passed overhead.
Click to expand...

It certainly speaks for you that you do not accept every UFO claim that is presented.

When I was a youngster, I went to lectures by the Danish SUFOI organisation that was investigating all these claims. I was amazed at the number of sightings, and how detailed they were, but shortly after, the SUFOI dissolved itself because it was apparent that all the claims were duds.

Now, about the Bariloch UFO encounter, the corroboration between ground observers and observers in the plane make it very likely that there was a real phenomenon, but I am at a loss as to why its origin should be extraterrestrial. It sounds more like an electrical phenomenon, particularly the bit about the city being blackened out.
 
skyeagle409 said:
From experience, I know what we have, and what we don't have in the way of aircraft shapes and performance capabilities and I have also been aware of many radar/visual encounters involving pilots, which in some cases, had resulted in the loss of pilots and aircraft.

The data I have posted is very clear that the UFOs were not ours based on the fact we have no such performance capabilities as of today. In other words, we don't have large aircraft capable of conducting 40+ G maneuvers and stay intact or fly through the atmosphere at 9000 mph and not generate a sonic boom.
Click to expand...

Let's see, is it a faraway large aircraft pulling 40+G maneuvers and flying through the atmosphere at 9000 mph without a sonic boom OR is it a bug/bird much closer to the lens flitting about quite normally?

Is it small pieces of debris close to the space shuttle camera or is it an alien ship?

Since you've explained as mundane so many UFO sightings yourself, I wonder why you are so quick to leap to the alien craft theory when you can't easily explain it. Why can't the answer just be: It's probably something mundane, I just can't tell what that is with the data I have.
 
skyeagle409 said:
I wouldn't say a bug in front of a camera. You might want to run that by engineers and scientist who observed saucers firsthand. After all, one team observed saucers hovering some 200 miles altitude above earth and I have supplied that report along with others as well.

Is this a bug in this video?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aS4GYJtVqkY
Click to expand...

In all liklihood, its tiny dust particles near the spacecraft, being illuminated by sunlight.

The area outside of ISS (and any spacecraft for that matter) is not a pristine environment. No matter how clean they try to keep the airlocks, the fact is that particles of dust do get transported from inside to outside during EVA. Also, it is well known that tiny bits of thermal blanket and other exterior items are continually shedding particles from the outer surfaces. Due to the fact there is no air, these particles tend to stay with the spacecraft in its orbit. There is also occasional minor venting of gases into space which could account for sudden turbulence and sudden movement of dust particles.

Additionally, if this was an internal camera shooting through a window, these could be dust particles between the camera lens and the window. These are hugely more likely explanations than alien spacecraft.


PS: As for testing you, well, I still think you are a liar. I will test you any time I like!
 
Last edited:
skyeagle409 said:
You have to understand it makes no difference to me whether you believe me or not because reality will remain unchanged and that is the way skeptics are in regard to UFOs. Remember, there are those who continue to claim there is no evidence the earth is round and no evidence that man went to the moon.

To sum it up, I let the data, official documentation and other evidence speak for themselves and for me personally, the question as to whether we are alone or not has been answered and I based that on my own experience, and knowledge of what the available evidence depicts.
Click to expand...

You revealed a tell about why you are credulous. There is a need in you to know you are not alone. Possibly this knowledge gives you a sense of there being purpose for your existence. If this is an accurate evaluation then perhaps, I hope, you'll have a better understanding why your argument as it's presented sways use not in the least and gives you insight into your personal motive.
 
Last edited:
skyeagle409 said:
Wilfried De Brouwer, Chief of Operations of the Belgian Air Force, who conducted the international press conference where he displayed the same radar screen I did, for the media which I used to match the radar data I have provided and confirmed by the Belgian Air Force and radar experts in Belgium. The data that I posted and matched to the F-16's screen which was presented by De Brouwer at that news conference was straight-to-the-point!!
Among others was Major Lambrechts, Belgian Air Force, the lead F-16 pilot involved in the incident in March 1990, professor Emile Schweitzer, one of the top radar experts in Belgium and many others. The data is undeniable and once again, confirmed as authentic.
Click to expand...

Would this be the same Wilfried De Brouwer who said the incidents were unexplained, and did not say the radar proved that alien craft were spotted in the skies above Belgium?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...n-fighters-scrambled-to-investigate-UFOs.html

Belgium's Chief of Operations, Colonel Wilfried De Brouwer, summarized the night by saying "The technical evidence was insufficient to conclude that abnormal air activities took place during that evening."
Click to expand...
https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4538
 
Jack by the hedge said:
My doubts are not over the authenticity of the data. They are over whether it accurately depicts the track of a real object.
Click to expand...


The lock-on diamond in the following photo says it all, and that is, the object was a craft in the sky that night.

International Press Conference F-16 Radar Screen

http://www.latest-ufo-sightings.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Colonel-Wilfried-De-Brouwer.png

The data for what you see on the screen, which I have posted earlier.

22 300 990 0000
 
Last edited:
Steve001 said:
You are making a gross error. That gross error is concluding said ufo's are alien craft.
Click to expand...


Remember, I am on the record for stating that the majority of UFO sightings can be explained with down-to-earth explanations. However, the small minority of sightings and encounters do not fit earthly explanations, which was backed by the Air Force when it concluded that the UFOs in question were "interplanetary spaceships. We don't have saucers that can perform 40+ G maneuvers at over 9000 mph.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
Common sense says that if radar data implies something flew supersonic at very low level over Belgium at night but nobody heard anything, then maybe there's some error in the data.
Click to expand...

I would say the 40g acceleration is pretty good indication, too. At least, I would put some kind of error well above extraterrestrial spacecraft on the list of possible explanations. While it seems obvious that a civilization capable of interstellar travel has more advanced technology than we do, simple physics makes that sort of capability highly unlikely, and makes it highly likely that even if a craft capable of that kind of acceleration could be built, it would kill its occupants.
 
Cosmic Yak said:
Would this be the same Wilfried De Brouwer who said the incidents were unexplained, and did not say the radar proved that alien craft were spotted in the skies above Belgium?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...n-fighters-scrambled-to-investigate-UFOs.html

https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4538
Click to expand...


This is the same General De Brouwer conducting the international press conference pointing out the radar lock-on on the F-16's radar screen of the UFO that night. The diamond proved the object in the sky that night, which was also visually confirmed and by ground-based radars.


General Wilfried De Brouwer

http://www.ina.fr/var/ogpv3/storage...11517-quand-l-armee-belge-traque-les-ovni.jpg

http://www.latest-ufo-sightings.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Colonel-Wilfried-De-Brouwer.png


Summary of the official report by the Belgian Air Force

(Regarding the UFO events of March, 1990)

1. Starting early Dec 89 the BAF has been contacted on several occasions by eyewitnesses who observed strange phenomena in the Belgian airspace. On some occasions they described the phenomena as a triangle-shaped platform up to 200 feet wide with 3 downward beaming projectors, hovering at +- 100 m above the ground and making only a very light humming noise. Some witnesses saw the object departing at very high speed after a very fast acceleration. All observations were made in the evening or during the night.

2. The radar stations which had been alerted by eyewitnesses could not definitely determine a correlation between the visual observations and their detection on radar. On two occasions the BAF scrambled 2 F16 during the evening hours.

a. On the first occasion the F16 arrived +- 1 hour after the visual detection. Nothing was observed.

b. On the second occasion, pilots could identify a laser-beam projector on the ground. After investigation it appeared however that the description of the observations totally differed from previously described phenomena.

3. Consequently the Belgian Airforce, anxious to identify the origin of the phenomena, authorised F16 scrambles if following conditions were met:

a. Visual observations on the ground confirmed by the local police.

b. Detection on radar.

Events:

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. 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.

6. The ground observers reported 3 additional light spots which moved gradually, with irregular speeds, towards the first set of lights and forming a second triangle.

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.
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.

9. The F16 flew 3 times through the observation field of the ground observers. At the third passage the ground observers notified a change in the behavior of the light spots. The most luminous started to blink very intensively while the other disappeared. Consequently, the most luminous spot started to dim gradually.

10. Meanwhile the head of the police of WAVRE had alerted 4 other police stations in the area. All four, separated +- 10 NM from each other, confirmed the visual observations.

11. The aircraft landed at 01.10 Hrs. The last visual observation was recorded at +- 01.30 Hrs.

Conclusions:

12. 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.

{signed}
W. DE BROUWER Kol Vl SBH
VS3
Click to expand...
 
Steve001 said:
You revealed a tell about why you are credulous. There is a need in you to know you are not alone. Possibly this knowledge gives you a sense of there being purpose for your existence. If this is an accurate evaluation then perhaps, I hope, you'll have a better understanding why your argument as it's presented sways use not in the least and gives you insight into your personal motive.
Click to expand...


The object that passed over my base in 1968 got the process started and what was revealed at my next base of assignment underlined another reason why I did not think the object was ours; Hill AFB was involved in investigations where saucers dismantled our Minuteman missiles. I later found that even before my sighting the Air Force had already confirmed the UFOs in question were "interplanetary spaceships" and even ordered its pilots to shoot down "flying saucers if they refused to land."
 
Last edited:
CORed said:
I would say the 40g acceleration is pretty good indication, too. At least, I would put some kind of error well above extraterrestrial spacecraft on the list of possible explanations. While it seems obvious that a civilization capable of interstellar travel has more advanced technology than we do, simple physics makes that sort of capability highly unlikely, and makes it highly likely that even if a craft capable of that kind of acceleration could be built, it would kill its occupants.
Click to expand...


The extreme maneuvering capability defines a technology unknown to mankind at this time.
 
Tolls said:
No.
As said, it's clat either inside or outside the shuttle, but near. I'm guessing that some thrusters were fired at the point the speck suddenly changes direction, as you can see another fast moving speck appear at the same time.

This "confusing things that are near for things that are far away" is very common.

ETA: In fact, there's a slight flash just beforehand...
Click to expand...


Thrusters had nothing to do with the object's movements.
 
smartcooky said:
What the current crop of UFO nuts don't understand is that the UFO scares of the late 1940s through to the 1970s were happening at the time of the Cold War. People were building nuclear fallout shelters in their yards. There was the Pueblo Incident, the Bay of Pigs, the Cuban Missile Crisis, the shooting down of Gary Francis Powers' U2 over the Soviet Union. These were scary times.

I am pretty much convinced that many of the "genuine" UFO sightings (that is ones where an actual flying machine was seen by many witnesses), were secret aircraft being tested. Many reported triangular/chevron shaped machines... the B2 bomber was developed over many years, and its distant predecessors the Northrop XB-35 and YB-49 had been flying since June 1946 and October 1947 respectively.

[qimg]https://www.dropbox.com/s/wx2xlpy2eoeuqyp/XB-35.jpg?dl=1[/qimg]
Northrop XB-35

[qimg]https://www.dropbox.com/s/m5bb9c976zbichp/YB-49.jpg?dl=1[/qimg]
Northrop YB-49

Having these triangular/chevron shaped aircraft flying in the US mid-southwest, and having people report seeing triangular/chevron shaped UFOs in the same area over the same time period seems too much of a coincidence to be ignored.
Click to expand...
Does indeed - but, hey, maybe the aliens rebuilt their craft to be triangular to confuse people - lot's of time that works!!!
 
skyeagle409 said:
The lock-on diamond in the following photo says it all, and that is, the object was a craft in the sky that night.

International Press Conference F-16 Radar Screen

http://www.latest-ufo-sightings.net/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Colonel-Wilfried-De-Brouwer.png

The data for what you see on the screen, which I have posted earlier.

22 300 990 0000
Click to expand...

To reiterate, my doubts are not over the authenticity of the data. They are over whether it accurately depicts the track of a real object.

If multiple radar systems really tracked a single object that night, did they all observe it performing these seemingly impossible manoeuvres, or was that only recorded by this one F-16?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom