It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Latest news on the Belgian wave and the Petit-Rechain picture

page: 1
<<   2  3 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 10 2008 @ 10:15 AM
Original article:
Link to the original article
(belgian newspaper "La Dernière Heure/Les Sports", article online 7th Aug. 2008)

Translation of the article:

UFOs still being examined (07/08/2008)

© D.R.
The photograph taken in 1990 in Petit-Rechain is still being analysed by scientifics.

BRUSSELS The Belgian wave is the period from 1989 to 1991, considered like the most important in the world, during which numerous UFOs observations was reported by witnesses in the Eupen area, the Hainaut and Namur provinces. The “Belgian Space phenomena study society” (SOBEPS) declares having received more than 2,000 reports and they have 20,000 pages of investigation reports (

In the night of the 4th of April 1990, near Verviers, in Petit-Rechain, two witnesses, Miss S. and Mr P.M., have seen shining in the sky three white and round lights, in the shape of a triangle with broken edges, with a luminous circle in the centre of the triangle, the whole thing was hovering, nearly immobile and producing no sound except a sort of a humming. Miss S. has noticed the strange lights at approximately 150 meters of altitude. She immediately runs and looks for Mr P., who grabs his Reflex camera and takes this famous picture in Petit-Rechain. The whole event took just maybe 5 minutes.

The SOBEPS members – which investigation methods, based on scientific validation of facts, are reliable – ask for an analysis of the picture to Marc Acheroy, nuclear physicist at the Royal Military School; to professor François Louange, from a private digital imagery laboratory which cooperates with the CNRS (“Centre National de Recherche Scientifique”, National Center of Scientific Research, France) and the French Army; to the photography service of the Belgian royal institute of artistic patrimony, which has an efficient photographic laboratory; and to Dr. Richard Haines, who works for NASA in California. Result, after years of analysis: the Petit-Rechain picture is not faked.

Ten years later, the SOBEPS asks the Orsay Optical Institute for counter-analysis. The purpose of this manoeuvre is to analyse the picture with more recent software and to compare the results with the old data. Result: the picture is not faked, and they have discovered something rather surprising, which was invisible until then: a vortex of moving particles surrounding the vehicle. To this day, no one really knows the nature of those particles. It could be an advanced propulsion technology.

Based on past analysis and current investigations, the Petit-Rechain picture does not at all confirm the existence of extraterrestrials, but it allowed to remove a veil and to question about a subject that is still considered as fantasies.

Nicolas Thiry

© La Dernière Heure 2008

[end of the translation]

I have tried to find more news about this analysis, but so far failed to. I also have tried find new information about this picture, but except this article above, nothing is newer than at least 10 years old...

But this analysis result is quite interesting to say the least... A "vortex of moving particles"!! Would that be possibly the link to the MHD technique that Jean-Pierre Petit, famous french scientist and author (although controversed on several aspects) described as early as about 40 years ago?

I would like to note that this "moving particles" aspect had also been theorised much earlier even (in 1953 if my memory doesn't fail) by (then) Lt Jean Plantier from the French Army; he indeed wrote a paper for a journal of the forces then which was an attempt at understanding potential techniques for the described movements of then so called "flying saucers".

I am sorry not to have a link in English to this paper at the moment, but I hold a copy of it, and I will translate it when I have some time. It is however found for French speaking readers on this site. Note that it is quite a technical explanation, actually extremely modern for the time, and impressively open-minded. While being partly incomplete, this deserves respect and consideration.

posted on Aug, 10 2008 @ 10:37 AM
Great post vince
I wonder what the vortex was.
Maybe antigravity tech.
Star and flag for you because I want to know more on this.

posted on Aug, 10 2008 @ 11:00 AM
This is interesting, I said this awhile ago.

My theory is as follows:

It's simple in theory, first some theorize that a graviton appears to us as mass in our four-dimensional space time and it actually gives us our mass. The graviton is a massless particle that can travel from dimension to dimension. In some spaces the mass of a graviton = zero so if you could warp space to match the geometry of that space time where the gravitons mass = zero, then you or the ship that you are piloting would have no mass and would be propelled at speeds faster than light. You would then be able to travel to say Abell 1835, before your ship left the Milky Way. This would also have implications for time travel.

I said this is why some pictures may be blurry because they are warping the space around the craft and I said you should have planes follow behind these crafts look for trace evidence of the energy they used to warp space.

Some think mass depends on the geometry of the local space. You would essentially be fooling space. Space would think your weigh the same as a subatomic particle and move you around at speeds close to the speed of light.

They would essentially be traveling through these warped passages and they can pop in and out of are space easily if they can control how our local space views their mass.

posted on Aug, 10 2008 @ 11:44 AM
In short: this case is almost impossible, if not impossible, to debunk/explain with some mundane event ( i mean with some proof )

It's by far my favourite one, the belgian ufo wave is something very close to the ideal UFO sighting. Strong evidences came with reports, documents, radar assessments, we had also two jets catching one of them (with no success, of course): thanks for providing us with some updates about it:

Perhaps the photo by itselfs says nothing, but the whole case is extremely compelling, in my opinion: manoeuvres of some of them were said to be "impossible" for terrestrial aircrafts, even if aircrafts technology has ALWAYS some secret ongoing advanced project:
Objects were witnessed at Eupen, Wavre, Leige and Brussels, were reported in over 2,600 statements to police, were caught on both Video and Camera, were detected and Confirmed by radar stations on the ground, were detected, confirmed and photographed on aircraft radar screens, were pursued for over an hour by two F-16s.
This story is NOT like a crappy video on youtube

Glons radar confirmed the sighting of an unidentified object at an altitude of 3,000 meters. Semmerzake radar confirmed the Glons detection and passed its confirmation onto the Air Force. The radar scans were compared with the previous Eupen radar sightings (see Eupen Case) by Semmerzake and Glons and were found to be identical.
Several police patrols had witnessed the same phenomenon before. It was a massive triangular shape with the same lighting configuration as seen at Eupen four months earlier.

Colonel Wilfred De Brouwer, Chief of the operations section of the Air Force, said: "That because of the frequency or requests for radar confirmation at Glons and Semmerzake - and as a number of private visual observations had been confirmed by the police - it was decided that as these parameters had been met, a patrol of F-16 aircraft should be sent to intercept an unidentified object somewhere to the south of Brussels"

As a consequence, two F-16 aircraft of the Belgian Air Force - registration
numbers 349 and 350 = flown by a Captain and a Flight-Lieutenant, both highly qualified pilots, took off from Bevekom.
Within a few minutes - guided by the Glons radar - both pilots had detected a positive oval-shaped object on their on-board radar at a height of 3,000 meters, but in the darkness saw nothing. This oval configuration, however, caused the pilots some concern. It reacted in an intelligent and disturbing way when they attempted to 'lock-on' with their on-board radar.

Changing shape instantly, it assumed a distinct 'diamond image' on their radar screens and - increasing its speed to 1,000km/h - took immediate and violent evasive action.

Photographs of the actual on-board radar of the F-16s recorded a descent of this object from 3,000m to 1,200 in 2 seconds, a descent rate of 1,800km/h. The same photographs show an unbelievable acceleration rate of 280km/h to 1,800km/h in a few seconds. According to Professor Leon Brening - a non-linear dynamic theorist at the Free University of Brussels - this would represent an acceleration of 46g and would be beyond the possibility of any human pilot to endure.
It was noted that in spite of these speeds and acceleration times there was a marked absence of any sonic boom. The movements of this object were described by the pilots and radar operators as 'wildly erratic and step-like', and a zigzag course was taken over the city of Brussels with the two F-16s in pursuit. Visual contact was not possible against the lighting of the city.
This same procedure was repeated several times, with this object - whenever an attempt at radar 'lock-on' was made - pursuing a violently erratic course at impossible speed and losing its pursuers.

Colonel De Brouwer added that Immediatley after the operation, the pilots said they had never seen anything like it. Certainly the flight pattern and echo on their screens was in no way that of a conventional aircraft
The Belgian Minister of Defence in the Belgian parliament stated that The Government did not know what they were.

We have some actual experts in aircrafts here, i would like to read some of their opinions about data like the ones related to some of the relevant data:

Acceleration data

Radar data

Colonel W. De Brouwer, Belgian Air Force, with the radar videos of one of the F-16s at the press conference of July 11th

Blow-up of the image on the bottom screen above.
The 990K is the speed of the object in knots.
990K = 1830 kilometers per hour = 1.5 Mach.

Speed changed of up to 410 knots in one second.
Heading changed of up to 70 degrees in one second.
Altitude changed of up to 3000 feet per second (1,777 knots) maintained for one second or less and typical ascent / descent rates of 1000 feet per second (592 knots).

The nature of these manuvers and their coincidence in time is also visible in this graph, which only shows the value of the changes:

Text file of the radar contacts of one of the F-16s

Sources, more infos and references:

Original article related to the pics (recovered)

Im glad to see some important updates about this extremely hard to explain case

Thank you

[edit on 10/8/2008 by internos]

posted on Aug, 10 2008 @ 01:35 PM
Well thanks too, Internos, for (re-)posting this summary about the event & data. I guess it may give it a second boom
It is indeed by far my favourite too (and not only because I'm Belgian, but because of the case itself, would it have been Australia or Brasil).

posted on Aug, 10 2008 @ 02:04 PM
It is good to see some scientists actually looking at and testing evidence such as the photograph. They can not state it is extraterrestrial, but they did rule out a fake/hoax. Most of the debunkers don't even check on the evidence, let alone test it.
Thank you for the update.

posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 09:18 AM
I finally have found some more about these new analysis. I am a bit surprised however that is is already a few years old, and only made it anecdotically in the news a few weeks ago...

Link to the original article: clicky

Translation (please excuse any mistake or error, it is quite a job to translate that into a language that is not your mother language!):

The Strong Cases :

The Belgian Wave, 1989-199?
The picture of Petit-Rechain, 04/04/1990, nearby Liège

General Presentation
On April 4th, 1990, at about 22.00 nearby Verviers, two witnesses, Miss S. and her friend Mr P.M. have spotted in the sky three white and round lights, in the shape of an triangle unclear in the night with a luminous spot in the centre, the whole thing staying totally immobile.

Being out like every evening to let the dog satisfy a natural need, Miss S. (18 years, student) was the first to see the strange lights, approximately at 150m of altitude. Surprised, she ran and called her fiancé who had stayed in the house.

M.P. (20 years, turner-fitter in a local industry) took his good quality camera (Reflex Praktica BX20, 55/200mm zoom) which was loaded with a roll of high sensitivity and fine grain slide (Kodak Ektachrome, 200 ASA), he wedged it against a wall, and carefully took two pictures, of which only one was successful despite the care he took (1 second pause, placed against a wall edge). The thing was not really silent, it emitted a light and unusual whistling. As soon as it had been photographed, the UFO left, quite slowly, the “pointing head” first. The whole scene lasted just 5 minutes.

On the two slides, only one, the first one, shows something. And yet, the picture doesn’t even really resemble to what the photographer has seen with his eyes. For example, where he saw white lights of a round shape, the picture shows arcs of circles, stains in a banana shape. The second slide, all black, goes straight to the bin.

This famous case is described and deeply analysed in the article "Analyse et
implications physiques de deux photos de la vague belge" by A. Meessen, professor at the UCL, published in the issue nr. 100 of the Inforespace magazine in 2000 and published on the Internet in 2001.

In his article, Pr. Meessen comes to this essential conclusion: the difference between what has been recorded on the photographic film and what has been visually perceived is easily explained by admitting that it was ultraviolet light. It was shown experimentally that this light could go through the objective and be recorded on the slide. The presence of UV light in front of what has been described as large lights and the fact that there has been an association with the movement of the UFO opens a new field for investigation. It links the UFO propulsion and the rays of “solid light” to the plasma physics. It is that, that is important in the end, together with a series of other elements, which understanding is not immediate, but important.

On May 5h, 1997, the SOBEPS organised a “study day dedicated to the photography called of Petit-Rechain”. It happened in the Royal Military School, to give to all the science men who had studied the picture to discuss it together. Have participated: Marc Acheroy, Michel Bougard, Léon Brenig, Lucien Clerebaut, Patrick Ferryn, François Louange, Mr P.M. who took the photograph, Auguste Meessen, Emil Schweiner and Isabelle Stengers.

P. Magain was invited by P. Ferryn and had accepted to present his hoax experiment and conclusions, but changed his mind just a few days before the date. As soon as Pr. Meessen knew about it, he contacted the Astrophysics Department in the Liège University, who signed the famous press communiqués but nobody wanted to participate.

The experts reports
This picture was examined at length by various photography experts and scientifics, which have all concluded that it was strange and unexplainable:

  • P. Ferryn, photo analysis expert for the SOBEPS, en 1990
  • Pr Marc Acheroy of the Royal Military School, Brussels, who conducted a very thorough computer analysis in 1990 (in VOB.1. p. 416-418 et VOB.2. p. 234-240)
  • Richard F. Haines, (Palo Alto, California) american expert on psychology of the perception in 1993
  • D. Soumeryn-Schmit, chief of the photographic service in the Royal Institute of Artistic Patrimony in Brussels, 1993
  • François Louange (Fleximage, Arcueil) conducted a computer analysis in 1993
  • A. Marion (CNRS, Orsay Optics Institute) conducted a counter-analysis on computer in 2002.

This last analysis was presented on October 1st 2003 to Dr François Louange in the headquarter of Fleximage in Arcueil. Here is the content of it, extract from special issue nr. 6 of the magazine VSD, Nov 2003, pg. 37-39, and it confirms previous results :

The famous slide of Petit-Rechain was analysed in the 1990’s by several experts in scientific imagery, particularly by Marc Acheroy (Royal Military School, Brussels), François Louange (Fleximage company, Paris) and Richard F. Haines (Los Altos California); on Oct. 15th 2001, Patrick Ferryn of the SOBEPS gave us this slide, he wanted us to analyse it in our turn using the latest techniques of image numerical analysis, used in the Theoretical and Applied Optics Institute in Orsay. The purpose of this was to compare our results to the previous results, and to outline extra information and if possible draw conclusions about the authenticity of the document and about the nature of the object photographed.

[edit on 8-9-2008 by SpookyVince]

posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 09:20 AM

General obversation of the slide

In a first step, we have conducted a visual observation of the film after taking it out of its frame, then a digitisation by transparency using a flatbed scanner Agfa Duoscan T1200. Our observations match those previously made:
- The frame of the picture is perfectly neat and with no split even if it is seen with a very increased contrast; this excludes a double or multiple exposure during the photography.
- It is very difficult to consider faking with a model or any other similar process. This will be confirmed by numerical treatment (see below).
- Video processing or CGI can’t be imagined either: such pictures characteristics are not found on the slide, even by increasing enormously the contrasts.
Even if nothing can be excluded, it seems very likely that the picture is one of a solid object seen on a sky background, object of an unidentified origin to this day.

Digitisation of the picture
The second step was to precisely digitise the slide using a 35mm Canon film scanner with an optical resolution of 2720ppp, which brings a pixel size of under 10µm. That resolution is much bigger than that of the film (around 1µm) but greatly better than the smallest significant details in the picture, which are never under 20µm.
Other than the four very luminous stains, the picture is nearly black and had nearly no contrast. It was thus necessary to have, as early as the digitisation, a noise/signal ratio as good as possible, in order to catch the smallest differences, even in the darkest areas of the picture. For that purpose, we have used a technique consisting in averaging multiple consecutive digitisations: by digitising n times the slide in the same conditions, one reduces the noise part of the image due to the electronic equipment by a factor of 1/sqrt(n).
By digitising the slide in a normal position, then rotated by 90°, 180° and 270°, it is possible to average the fixed noise due to the structure of the equipment (non uniform answers from the bar photosites). To do that, you then need to reprocess the pictures up to the pixel, with an appropriate software, in order to superimpose them perfectly.
It is also possible to reduce the quantification noise influence (i.e. the pixels are coded by 8 bits per colour, that is 256 levels) by averaging the digitisation of the film in ‘positive film’ mode and ‘negative film’ mode, because the answer curves of the scanner are not the same in both modes.
Having then obtained a final average picture in its three components red, green and blue, we kept only a roughly 2 centimetres square, composed of 2430 by 2430 pixels. Finally, given the size of the smallest visible details (about 20µm as said above), we resized that zone to 1024 by 1024 by interpolation of pixels (fig 1.), in order to limit the size of the pictures and the calculation times.

Numerical treatments results
1. A contrasts increase brings out the object shape (fig. 2), particularly on the blue component (fig. 3). That outline is in the shape of an isosceles triangle ABC nearly squared angled on A, completed on its base by a quadrilateral BCED very similar to a rectangle. Taking into account the viewing angle, it is probable that angles A, D and E are square angles, and that the object is horizontal. On the object, very dark, are four very bright stains, that we will call lights to simplify. Three of those lights are close to A, D and E on the object, while the fourth one is situated roughly on the altitude AH of the triangle, from vertex A down to the DE base (fig. 4). It is not possible to estimate the size of or distance to the object, because there is no landmark.
Some areas of the outline are nearly neat while others are blurred, indicating a relative movement of the object and the film. The most believable explanation is that the object has executed a movement during the exposure time, the camera being fixed, but we can’t exclude a small movement of the camera. The two extreme positions are shown on figure 5.
The shape of the observed blurring can be explained by a rotation of the object in space, around an axis going through a point O nearly on the line BC and such that BO = O.25 BC (fig. 5). The rotation angle is close to 5°. We could simulate that blur effect by simulation (fig. 6).
The same rotation also allows to find the whole set movement the four lights underwent, supposed circular on the simulation. However, the three external lights show complex coloured structures and distortions that this global rotation do not explain: the obtained pictures necessarily imply independent movements for all of those lights in comparison with the object.
2. Various colour treatments allow to bring out a luminous halo around the object as well as light trails between the lights, particularly between the central light and the edge ones (fig 7.). However these treatments, in real as well as false colours, do not allow to draw a conclusion about the nature of that halo, nor to be able to precise what are those lights: lighting systems, signal lights or hovering/propulsion systems from the object.
3. Decomposition of the picture in brightness, hue and saturation provides rich information, particularly on the saturation component. This information is substantially improved through frequency filters and colour compositions. Processes have allowed to show privileged directions, especially in the halo that surrounds the object (fig. 8, 9, 10, 11). These directions correspond to the orientations of small luminous grains which, on the picture, compose a sort of rotation around the object, to be compared to snow flakes being flown around in a wind vortex. We can also compare it to iron filings that would be oriented in the lines of a magnetic field. Would that be electromagnetic perturbations, an air ionisation process? Without any available elements, the nature of that phenomenon is difficult to precise, even more because it is practically unspottable on the red, green or blue components of the image. These new observations are even more interesting because they seem to reinforce some theories, like those of the ionic plasma waves, theory used by Auguste Meessen, Professor Emeritus at Louvain University, about the object propulsion (magnetoplasmadynamic propulsion).
Anyway, the existence of those “force lines” is a heavy argument against a faking, which would then be particularly elaborated. Moreover one doesn’t see well a reason why a hoaxer would have undergone the effort to imagine and realise such a complex phenomenon, particularly since it is only perceivable with a sophisticated image processing.

The numerical processing that we executed in Orsay on the Petit-Rechain slide have confirment the major observations already made. They also brought new surprising results about the luminous halo surrounding the object, showing a process in the appearance of a whirl. The nature of the physical phenomenon corresponding could, according to some authors, be linked to the particular propulsion system of the object. That question ought to be investigated further.

posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 09:24 AM
Also see issue 110 of Inforespace of June 2005.

The sceptics
The main arguments from the skeptics on this case are of two kinds:
1. The photo is "impossible" or in contradiction with the witnesses accounts. The object is too clear (in pause B mode of 1 second, there must have been a movement from the photographer); the object on the slide is too big, notably its lights which should have had in the sky the size of a full moon, while the witnesses described them as simple luminous spots.
2. The photo is faked. It is very easy to reproduce with simple means a picture similar to that of Petit-Rechain. For instance, the one made by the Belgian astrophysicist M. Magain, or the one made by the sceptic Wim Van Utrecht.
These arguments have been explained during a RTBF show (note : French-speaking Belgian television) on Monday the 4th of March 2002, one explanation of it (biased) is given on this page from the sceptic Leurquin.

1. The impossible photo

Belgian astrophysicist M. Magain pretended that it was impossible to make such a clear picture of such an object in the night with the exposure time used by the witness. That is in reality false, one can try the experience in the same conditions to be convinced. About this, it is interesting to mention an anecdote revealing the biased attitude of the media. Extract from the special issue nr. 6 of VSD in November 2003:
What Patrick Ferryn, responsible for the photographic analysis in the SOBEPS, was not allowed to say during a show on the Belgian television RTBF.

Yes, it is possible to take this kind of photo!

During the “non debate” on RTBF, I knew that M. Magain (Astrophysics Institute in Liège University) would not hesitate to underline a technical impossibility: “the slide is suspect due to the impossibility to produce a neat picture using the exposure time used by the witness”. I had forewarned Isabelle Franchimont, who had formally promised me that I would precisely have to answer to that argument. It is the only reason why I finally have accepted to participate in the show.
As I expected, Magain indeed explained his objection, but at the precise moment I was going to answer, the sound from the microphone I was using has been cut! Then the host went on with another chapter. I stood up, decided to reach the center of the stage, have word again, and answer to Magain, but the technicians and Isabelle Franchimont prevented me, guaranteeing that even if I would do it, it would cut out during editing! I therefore have not had the possibility to contradict Pierre Magain.
The process is inelegant because the public will only remember the opinion of one high level scientific. If I could have answered as it was assured to me, it would have only taken a few seconds: I would have only said that Pierre Magain is free to believe that it is impossible to produce a neat picture in those conditions, but that it is not exact! I have even showed it by producing several pictures – neither clearer, neither blurrier – of a model photographed in identical circumstances (see “Vague d’ovnis sur la Belgique”, vol. 1), and that even free hand! I do not pretend that it is the best way to successfully picture anything. The witness, he took care of blocking his objective, wedge it against a wall to avoid as much as possible a movement. Too bad that it was impossible to speak of it…

2. The faked picture

Wim Van Utrecht (Source : Article from Wim Van Utrecht on the SOBEPS website) declares that the witnesses have mistaken a common airplane lights configuration for a UFO and that the photographer or someone in his relations has produced a faked picture to create a spectacular UFO observation. To comfort his ideas, M. Van Utrecht can only show a small carton shoddy work made in October 1992, supposed to reproduce the cheat used (a small black paper triangle glued on a blue carton, with small perforations, placed in front of some lamps). Here is this “fake”, from this page from Mr Leurquin website, already mentioned above:

Alas for the sceptics, this kind of gross fake has been dismissed by professor Marc Acheroy (Royal Military School in Brussels) in 2003 (Source : VSD special issue nr. 6 November 2003, page 39):

The analysis of the three colour components (red, green, blue) show that the size of the lights is the same in the three components for the faked photo, but to the contrary is strongly increasing like the wavelength in the picture from Petit-Rechain. This can easily be explained by the process used to obtain the picture of Van Utrecht (a holed mask between the camera and the light source).
In the faked one, the lights movement is the same as the triangular surface. In the picture from Petit-Rechain, it is different.
In the faked one, within a same light, le “light lines” are all in the same direction, which is not the case in the picture from Petit-Rechain.
Conclusion: it is not by using the faking method of W. Van Utrecht that the original slide was produced. The following comments however need to be mentioned:
- it was impossible to demonstrate that the original could be a fake.
- even if it was possible to produce a document in all aspects identical to the slide taken in Petit-Rechain, that would not mean automatically that it is a fake.
- the hypothesis that the Petit-Rechain slide would be a fake cannot be rejected to this date, and maybe will never be, one must then stay careful.
- If the Petit-Rechain slide is an authentic document, nothing proves it is about extraterrestrials.

In short, the “simplistic” fakes created by Mr Van Utrecht and Mr Magain don’t stand scrutinizing. Mr Van Utrecht admits it himself in his article mentioned above (Article from Wim Van Utrecht on the SOBEPS website).

posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 09:26 AM
I am voluntarily not translating the references as the titles are self explanatory for the most part, and the only way to retrieve them through web searches if you want to find them. Here are the original references:

Articles du Pr Meessen
· Analyse de 2 photos (Ramillies et Petit-Rechain) :
Mémoire de licence en 'Arts et sciences de la communication', de Frédéric van Vlodorp
"La vague belge d'observations d'OVNI vue par la presse écrite francophone en 1989-1991 : étude thématique et regard critique".
Faculté de Philosophie et Lettres de l'Université de Liège, année académique 1991-1992.
"Vague d'OVNI sur la Belgique - Un Dossier Exceptionnel"
Ouvrage collectif de la SOBEPS, Bruxelles 1991. Un must, la "bible" sur cette vague : une collection sans égale de témoignages de première main, enquêtés par les bénévoles et scientifiques de la SOBEPS.
Postface du général-major aviateur Wilfried DE BROUWER
"Vague d'OVNI sur la Belgique 2 - Une Enigme Non Résolue"
Ouvrage collectif de la SOBEPS, Bruxelles, 1994.
Science & Vie Junior - Hors Série N°57 - Juillet 2004
VSD hors série N°6 Novembre 2003 pages 34 à 39
Facteur X N°8 pages 213 à 217 : analyse de la célèbre et unique photo de Petit-Rechain près de Liège (4 avril 90)

posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 09:51 AM
I seem to remember reading something about vortex propulsion being used in vimanas as mentioned in the mahabarata awhile back.
The translations mentioned something about a mercury vortex engine.
Supposedly, there would be a mixture of mercury and something else held in vessels around the perimeter of the craft which, when heated, would vaporize the mercury and cause some sort of magnetic reaction resulting in an ionization of the air molecules around the craft in a vortex pattern creating lift in some way(or perhaps a gravitational field). This field could also result in a sort of cloaking effect as illuminated air molecules would render the craft virtually indistiguishable from the daytime sky.
There were insinuations that the nazis were researching this kind of technology during their "bell" experiments(serum 545 or something like that).

One aspect of the vimana story that resonates with another fairly credible-seeming story is in part of the Carlos Diaz documentary where they had a guy that wrote the day after roswell(sorry, his name escapes me right now).
In the mahabarata, it is mentioned that in some of these vimanas that the pilot's own energies were an integral part of navigation while other types of vimanas could be flown without the need for this level of spiritual advancement. The author speaking about the craft Carlos Diaz had photographed and filmed said that they had recovered a similar craft at roswell and they had figured out that the craft wouldn't fly without the polit just like in the mahabarata.

Fascinating stuff. Perhaps the vortex engine is real.

posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 05:54 AM
ufo in petit rechain on april the 4 th 1990
nothing else that the tr-3b vehicle with plasma propulsion developed in nevada in area51

posted on Oct, 15 2008 @ 04:37 PM
I am frankly a bit surpised by the total lack of interest of ATSers on this thread... I have spent several hours translating that report, and all I see is that it's getting dust more than views... More than one month after this, not a flag, not a star, and two answers...

I suppose I can't force people...

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
ufo in petit rechain on april the 4 th 1990
nothing else that the tr-3b vehicle with plasma propulsion developed in nevada in area51

Care to explain why, how, and what? I am quite adamant that this was *not* any secret US ship for a million good reasons. One does *not* test top secret equipment above a country with 350 persons per square kilometer during 18 months!

[edit on 15-10-2008 by SpookyVince]

posted on Oct, 16 2008 @ 04:34 AM

Originally posted by SpookyVince
I am frankly a bit surpised by the total lack of interest of ATSers on this thread... I have spent several hours translating that report, and all I see is that it's getting dust more than views... More than one month after this, not a flag, not a star, and two answers...

I suppose I can't force people...

Thanks for all your work in this thread SpookyVince.

The Belgium wave is also one of my favorite cases and it's a shame this thread gets so little attention. I can imagine why the debunkers stay out of this thread because they normally cannot cope with hard evidence. But I would assume that anybody with a serious interest in Ufology would be highly interested in updates regarding this case.

Care to explain why, how, and what? I am quite adamant that this was *not* any secret US ship for a million good reasons. One does *not* test top secret equipment above a country with 350 persons per square kilometer during 18 months!

Good point.

I also find it highly unlikely that in case this is the tr-3b the pilots can suddenly endure 46G without dying instantly.

If this craft is terrestrial then where did they get the technology and why are they not using it openly today?

Starred and flagged.

posted on Oct, 16 2008 @ 04:56 AM

Originally posted by Fastwalker81
Thanks for all your work in this thread SpookyVince.

The Belgium wave is also one of my favorite cases and it's a shame this thread gets so little attention. I can imagine why the debunkers stay out of this thread because they normally cannot cope with hard evidence. But I would assume that anybody with a serious interest in Ufology would be highly interested in updates regarding this case.

I suppose you must be right...

One way or another I'm on the lookout about this case. Living in Belgium is obviously an advantage (though with internet nowadays, you sometimes know better what's happening at the other end of the world than in your own town!).

I thought that this report was of an incredible importance, as it is the first time ever that a picture (slide) which has been thoroughly analyzed to detect a fakery, and stood the test, has shown such results as this: some kind of electrical/magnetic field around the craft!! What an amazing conclusion!

If/when I have some time, I will post a more in depth analysis of these conclusions and a the implications of this on what's now known as MHD.

posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 08:20 PM

Originally posted by SpookyVince
I am frankly a bit surpised by the total lack of interest of ATSers on this thread... I have spent several hours translating that report, and all I see is that it's getting dust more than views... More than one month after this, not a flag, not a star, and two answers...

I suppose I can't force people...

A great thread here SpookyVince. You weren't wasting your time as the thread hasn't disappeared and so any one can reply at any time. The initial posts you made were very comprehensive in their analysis and examination of the incident which occured on the 30th-31st of March, 1990. There are some things about which I'd like to discuss.

Firstly this picture fabricated by the sceptic who's a Belgian, Wim Van Utrecht :-

Unfortunately for me. I do find it similar to the original photograph taken by Mr. P. M in Petit-Rechain of April 1990. There's a clear difference of course between the two photographs. Although it introduces a little bit of doubt in my mind, that the original photograph is beyond reproach and therefore definitive proof.

I personally believe that one must begin with the likeliest or most plausible answer. I would imagine Ockham's razor would play a part in my conclusion. Which is that the craft(s) were of U.S origin. Whilst there is no evidence within the public domain as to whether the U.S or any other nation on Earth has such technology. The craft remains unidentified and therefore one should not state: "it cannot belong to so and so". Of course, I am open to the extra-terrestrial possibility since the craft(s) displayed incredible rates of climb and descent in addition to the phenomenal acceleration. These were acts of aerial manoeuvrability which under our laws of physics and technological constraints, should not be possible.

Now a test flight would be highly unlikely. If this incident was a test flight conducted by a branch of the U.S armed forces/intelligence service then one must wonder how competent they can be. If they were so reckless and brazen in the flying of the craft. Especially as these craft casually hovered near or over various population centres and were observed by many civilians. Who are the sort of observers one would imagine should not be able to view craft that are top secret and have not been vetted for operational use. Therefore if this event was a test flight then they merely provided intelligence to possible belligerents (the Soviet Union was still in existence at the time) and allowed the objects to be seen more than during the testing phase of the stealth aircraft.

The one theory I have which may explain why these craft appeared is that the U.S sensing the Soviet Union may need to be pushed. Allowed these craft to be viewed by the public, law enforcement and the military in addition to being tracked by radar. Knowing that the media would disseminate any recorded media of the craft to the whole world. The Soviets, being alarmed at the latest technology displayed by the Americans sue for peace as it were. I'm not sure whether the use of the craft over Belgium was symbolic? Brussells is the headquarters of NATO and so for a major NATO member (and the most powerful and influential one) to display its latest technological break-through over this territory is a potent message. I believe some craft were seen and/or detected near Brussells. I know this theory may not make sense but if I am to believe the U.S were responsible for such craft. I would need to justify this claim with at least some sort of theory.

It's also peculiar that the craft reacted to the F-16s locking on to it by abruptly changing speed and altitude. Knowing full-well that the F-16s could not match their manoeuvres and so would not be able to instantly require "lock-on". I also wondered if the craft utilised some very advanced electronic counter-measures.

posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 08:43 PM
The wikipedia article on ECM states :-

Electronic countermeasures (ECM) are a subsection of electronic warfare which includes any sort of electrical or electronic device designed to trick or deceive radar, sonar, or other detection systems like IR (infrared) and Laser. It may be used both offensively or defensively in any method to deny targeting information to an enemy. The system may make many separate targets appear to the enemy, or make the real target appear to disappear or move about randomly. It is used effectively to protect aircraft from guided missiles. Most air forces use ECM to protect their aircraft from attack. ...Frequently is coupled with stealth advances so that the ECM system has an easier job. Offensive ECM often takes the form of jamming. Defensive ECM includes using blip enhancement and jamming of missile terminal homers.


In the report on the incident, conducted by the Belgian Air Force. It states :-

00 h 30: AL 17 has a radar contact at 5000 feet, 20 NM away Beauvechain (Nivelles), position 255. The target moves at very high speed (740 knots). The lock on lasts during 6 seconds, and, at the break lock, the signal of a jamming appears on the scope.


Which is the reason I brought up radar jamming. Of course by mentioning U.S connection it would be conceivable that the craft would employ advanced ECM (as do most military aircraft). However for an ECM package to have defeated the F-16s radar (and that of the ground radar tracking stations - some of which may have been 50-100 miles away) would require some phenomenal projectional ability on part of the on-board ECM package. It would also be highly improbable for such a system to be able to project spurios contacts on to another radar screen. Which displayed such incredible aerial feats.

I have considered the possibility that the aforementioned "jamming" may have been an inadvertent/natural effect of whatever propulsion system the craft empoyed. However it seems the jamming is only mentioned after the craft broke the F-16s "lock-ons" several times.

[edit on 29-10-2009 by Retro~Burn]

[edit on 29-10-2009 by Retro~Burn]

posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 09:12 PM
Outstanding thread! It's awesome when these older threads get "resurrected" and brought back to the front page of the forum. The "Belgium Wave" imho, is truly one of the best pieces of UFO evidence in history. An incident that you can ALWAYS point to when debating with skeptics over coffee or next to the water cooler at work.

posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 10:00 PM
This has always been my favourite case as well. I first read about it in Nick Pope's book Open Skies, Closed Minds and it really caught my attention. One thing Nick pointed out was that newspaper reports of the nights sightings appeared in the press on the morning of April 1st and were therefore easily dismissed as a joke; I wonder if this is a coincidence or indicates the date was carefully chosen?

Originally posted by Retro~Burn

The one theory I have which may explain why these craft appeared is that the U.S sensing the Soviet Union may need to be pushed. The Soviets, being alarmed at the latest technology displayed by the Americans sue for peace as it were.

I have heard that theory proposed before as well. I'm not sure if I buy it totally, however it does make sense to display the technology (if that was what was happening) over a friendly nation where retrieval would be easier if it were to malfunction or be shot down than to do the same over Moscow and risk the technology falling into enemy hands if it were to fail.

posted on Oct, 29 2009 @ 10:59 PM
reply to post by polomontana

A gravitron exists in 11 dimensions


new topics

top topics

<<   2  3 >>

log in