4 ms·

> The evidence includes I highly recommend reading the Skeptical explanations section of that article. Among other things: [...] but the Belgian military onl

> The evidence includes I highly recommend reading the Skeptical explanations section of that article. Among other things: [...] but the Belgian military only reported three such locks, and upon analyzing the data, all three radar locks were on each other.

tristanj 9y ago
Troublingly, the skeptical explanations section does not resolve the thousands of eyewitness reports from people claiming to see the UFOs. The reports describe a low flying object visible before the F-16s took flight. The helicopter explanation put forth in the section hypothesizes the eyewitnesses mistook at least 3 different models of helicopters as UFOs. While possible, I don't believe it likely that a fleet of helicopters could be flying in the area without the air traffic control nor the Belgian military being aware of it.
- ckastner 9y ago
  > Troublingly, the skeptical explanations section does not resolve the thousands of eyewitness reports from people claiming to see the UFOs Actually, that section contains a very reasonable explanation: Hallet's thesis is that the Belgian UFO wave was mostly a mass delusion, boosted by the work done by the SOBEPS. This mass delusion would have followed Philip J. Klass's law: Once news coverage leads the public to believe that UFOs may be in the vicinity, there are numerous natural and man-made objects which, especially seen at night, can take on unusual characteristics in the minds of hopeful viewers. Their UFO reports in turn add to the mass excitement, which encourages still more observers to watch for UFOs. This situation feeds upon itself until such time as the media lose interest in the subject, and then the « flap » quickly runs out of steam..
  - tristanj 9y ago
    Trouble is, mass hysteria is a rather terrible explanation, as it is a logical explanation for nearly any observable phenomena. It can be adapted to retort practically any eyewitness account. For example, it's possible to argue for and against the hypothesis that the earth is flat using the retort that the other side is suffering from mass delusion. Furthermore, a mass hysteria explanation needs to be coupled with the an explanation of the unidentified objects detected on both the ground and F-16 radars.
- antonvs 9y ago
  I worked at a planetarium for a while. On nights when one of the naked-eye planets were low in the sky, we would get dozens of calls from people either wanting to know what they saw, or trying to report a UFO. Often, these reports would claim that the light was flashing and jumping around - an effect from seeing it through a thick layer of atmosphere between the observer and the horizon. Meteor showers or individual meteorites were another rich source of these reports. The variations that can occur here are enormous - see e.g. "Observation of Fireballs" and "Fireballs and Meteorite Falls": https://www.imo.net/observations/fireballs/observations/ https://www.imo.net/observations/fireballs/observations/, https://www.imo.net/observations/fireballs/meteorites/ https://www.imo.net/observations/fireballs/meteorites/ The first link above points out: > "The collision of the meteoroid with atmospheric particles causes ablation, and thereby ionization, of both atmospheric and meteoroid constituents. While most of these excited states exist for about 10^-8 seconds only, there are also some atomic states which may persist for times exceeding several seconds (metastable levels). The emissions from such levels may be visible for variable amounts of time, and are designated as persistent trains (see Baggaley, 1980). They appear bright in the night sky after the meteor itself has disappeared. A large meteoroid entering the atmosphere leaves a substantial amount of material in its wake which is distributed along its trajectory." The kinds of visual effects this can produce are affected by where the trail is relative to the observer - again, looking through more atmosphere tends to create additional effects. And of course, planets and meteors are not the only causes of relatively uncommon visual effects. Clouds, refracted sunlight or moonlight, smoke, jet trails, etc. are all capable of producing effects whose true cause may either not be apparent to a casual observer or even not without careful study by trained observers. In short, large numbers of eyewitnesses to something unexplained is most likely to demonstrate the limitations of untrained observers seeing some unusual but perfectly ordinary phenomenon.
  - kamaal 9y ago
    This reminds me of a quote from the movie Prometheus - "God doesn't build in straight lines" Meaning, if you see intelligent stuff being done. Objects moving up and down, left and right in perfect angles. Or if some one wrote up "Hello, World" on the skies its very unlikely its a natural phenomenon.

tristanj 9y ago

Troublingly, the skeptical explanations section does not resolve the thousands of eyewitness reports from people claiming to see the UFOs. The reports describe a low flying object visible before the F-16s took flight. The helicopter explanation put forth in the section hypothesizes the eyewitnesses mistook at least 3 different models of helicopters as UFOs. While possible, I don't believe it likely that a fleet of helicopters could be flying in the area without the air traffic control nor the Belgian military being aware of it.

ckastner 9y ago
> Troublingly, the skeptical explanations section does not resolve the thousands of eyewitness reports from people claiming to see the UFOs Actually, that section contains a very reasonable explanation: Hallet's thesis is that the Belgian UFO wave was mostly a mass delusion, boosted by the work done by the SOBEPS. This mass delusion would have followed Philip J. Klass's law: Once news coverage leads the public to believe that UFOs may be in the vicinity, there are numerous natural and man-made objects which, especially seen at night, can take on unusual characteristics in the minds of hopeful viewers. Their UFO reports in turn add to the mass excitement, which encourages still more observers to watch for UFOs. This situation feeds upon itself until such time as the media lose interest in the subject, and then the « flap » quickly runs out of steam..
- tristanj 9y ago
  Trouble is, mass hysteria is a rather terrible explanation, as it is a logical explanation for nearly any observable phenomena. It can be adapted to retort practically any eyewitness account. For example, it's possible to argue for and against the hypothesis that the earth is flat using the retort that the other side is suffering from mass delusion. Furthermore, a mass hysteria explanation needs to be coupled with the an explanation of the unidentified objects detected on both the ground and F-16 radars.
antonvs 9y ago
I worked at a planetarium for a while. On nights when one of the naked-eye planets were low in the sky, we would get dozens of calls from people either wanting to know what they saw, or trying to report a UFO. Often, these reports would claim that the light was flashing and jumping around - an effect from seeing it through a thick layer of atmosphere between the observer and the horizon. Meteor showers or individual meteorites were another rich source of these reports. The variations that can occur here are enormous - see e.g. "Observation of Fireballs" and "Fireballs and Meteorite Falls": https://www.imo.net/observations/fireballs/observations/ https://www.imo.net/observations/fireballs/observations/, https://www.imo.net/observations/fireballs/meteorites/ https://www.imo.net/observations/fireballs/meteorites/ The first link above points out: > "The collision of the meteoroid with atmospheric particles causes ablation, and thereby ionization, of both atmospheric and meteoroid constituents. While most of these excited states exist for about 10^-8 seconds only, there are also some atomic states which may persist for times exceeding several seconds (metastable levels). The emissions from such levels may be visible for variable amounts of time, and are designated as persistent trains (see Baggaley, 1980). They appear bright in the night sky after the meteor itself has disappeared. A large meteoroid entering the atmosphere leaves a substantial amount of material in its wake which is distributed along its trajectory." The kinds of visual effects this can produce are affected by where the trail is relative to the observer - again, looking through more atmosphere tends to create additional effects. And of course, planets and meteors are not the only causes of relatively uncommon visual effects. Clouds, refracted sunlight or moonlight, smoke, jet trails, etc. are all capable of producing effects whose true cause may either not be apparent to a casual observer or even not without careful study by trained observers. In short, large numbers of eyewitnesses to something unexplained is most likely to demonstrate the limitations of untrained observers seeing some unusual but perfectly ordinary phenomenon.
- kamaal 9y ago
  This reminds me of a quote from the movie Prometheus - "God doesn't build in straight lines" Meaning, if you see intelligent stuff being done. Objects moving up and down, left and right in perfect angles. Or if some one wrote up "Hello, World" on the skies its very unlikely its a natural phenomenon.