UFOs Generals, Pilots, and Government Officials Go on the Record (7 page)

Although many questions remain unanswered, analysis shows that a number of points can be made with certainty, and some conclusions can be drawn.

• Most witnesses reported the craft had a triangular shape, but a number of reports mentioned other shapes, such as a diamond, cigar, or egg, and, in a few spectacular cases, an aircraft carrier turned upside down.
  

• The reported air activities were unauthorized, yet were observed by multiple witnesses while not registering on surveillance radars.
  

• It can be deduced that on both November 29 and December 11 at least two crafts were active at the same time. On November 29, two policemen reported two at the same time in different locations, and also different shapes were reported. On December 11, witnesses reported seeing a craft at the same time at different locations.
  

• On several occasions, the craft made a tilting maneuver allowing observers to see its upper side, revealing a dome at the top. Some reported windows or lights on the side of the craft; others saw lit windows in the dome.
  

• No electromagnetic effects, such as radio interference, were experienced.
  

• Not one aggressive or hostile act was noted.
  

• The flying objects didn’t try to hide and, in several cases, moved toward the observers on the ground. Some witnesses reported that crafts responded to their signals, such as switching one of its lights off and on when they flashed the headlights of their car.
  

• The crafts performed in ways not possible by known technology. They were able to remain stationary and hover, even in unusual positions such as vertical and/or banking at 45 degrees or more. They could fly at slow speeds and accelerate extremely fast, faster than any known aircraft, and they remained silent, or made only a very slight noise, even when hovering or accelerating. The objects were equipped with very large spotlights, with a diameter of more than one meter (three feet), capable of intensively illuminating the ground from an altitude of 100 meters (330 feet) or more. The integrity of these lights was variable—in some cases, witnesses reported that the lights were not illuminating the ground and were not blinding. Experts are convinced that the spotlights are of a very special nature; the size and intensity have not been seen on any aircraft before. These crafts carried a red light from underneath, at the bottom of their underside and apparently unattached to the structure, which seemed to pulsate rather than rotate. On three occasions, red light balls left the structure, and on two occasions they were seen returning to the craft.
  

• Some of these individual performance capabilities may be explainable in isolation, but the combination of all of them makes them highly unusual, even enigmatic. The technology used by these crafts was so advanced that even today, twenty years later, it is not available.
  

• The most important conclusion is that there must have been air activities of unknown origin in the airspace of Belgium. The number of cases and the credibility of the vast number of witnesses leave us with an intriguing mystery.
  

The events of November 29 were extensively covered by the media and naturally the Air Force was overwhelmed with questions. The questions were addressed to the Belgian defense minister but ended up on my desk as Chief of Operations of the Air Staff. I was asked repeatedly about the origin and nature of these craft.

The Belgian Air Force tried to identify the alleged intruder(s). We verified the radar registrations for November 29 but nothing special had been recorded. In addition, the civil aviation authorities confirmed that no flight plans had been introduced and that no special activities had been recorded by the civil radars. I was able to determine that the objects seen on November 29 could not have been helicopters, blimps, or any fixed-wing aircraft. This implied that the reported object(s) committed an infraction against the existing aviation rules.

We were dealing with a problem. I checked further to find out if these objects could have been espionage flights made by F-117 stealth aircraft or anything similar. Because of the described performances that did not match any known technological capabilities, I was convinced that this was not the case. I also couldn’t believe that any other nation would conduct experiments with crafts using unknown technology over a populated area without any formal authorization. Nevertheless, I forwarded the question to the U.S. Embassy, which quickly confirmed that no Stealth flights or any other experimental flights had taken place over Belgium.

Because there was no explanation for the events of November 29, and also because the sightings continued, we agreed to authorize the national defense system to scramble two F-16 fighter jets when abnormal activities were reported. The first two F-16s were sent out on December 8 after strange lights were reported, but nothing definitive was determined.

In cooperation with the civil aviation authorities and the federal police, the Air Force established a procedure by which the F-16s could identify these phenomena. To ensure that the fighter jets would not be scrambled irresponsibly, we decided that authorization to launch the Quick Reaction Alert (QRA) aircraft would only be given when: (1) the sighting of a craft was confirmed by the police, and (2) the object was detected on radar. This meant that the radar stations had to pay special attention to slow-moving targets when notified of an observation by the police.

This would avoid unnecessary scrambles, but it also had major disadvantages. Most of the witnesses didn’t react by calling the police, or weren’t able to call quickly enough—mobile phones didn’t exist yet—for the police to confirm the sightings. It was also problematic for radar controllers to work on a screen that was heavily cluttered, in order to be able to record targets not usually shown on the scope. Thus the precautionary measures prevented quick scrambles.

As Chief of Operations at the Air Staff, I felt obliged to closely follow the events. However, no priority was given to this by the Belgian government since no threatening incidents had occurred, and no formal inquiries were conducted by any governmental bodies. Although the defense minister insisted on a transparent approach, especially to show the public that there was no cover-up, the Air Force was not authorized to establish a dedicated office for conducting its own inquiries. Instead, the Air Force supported SOBEPS—the scientific research group investigating the case—in any way we could, such as providing information on registered air activities over observation areas and responding to requests for radar data. SOBEPS approached the issue professionally and the Air Force information allowed the organization to make objective inquiries and file all relevant data.

On the evening of March 30–31, 1990, an F-16 launch was initiated after the observation of strange lights by several policemen, and after an assumed flying object was confirmed by two military radar stations. Once aloft, the pilots tried to intercept the alleged crafts, and at one point recorded targets on their radar with unusual behavior, such as jumping huge distances in seconds and accelerating beyond human capacity. Unfortunately, they could not establish visual contact.

The defense minister received many follow-up questions about this launch, but the Air Force needed time to properly analyze the data. We called a press conference about three months later, on July 11, 1990. The activities of the F-16s had been reconstructed, but the technical analysis was not fully completed. I presented one particular radar lock-on that showed extraordinary accelerations well outside the performance envelope of any known aircraft. Nevertheless, I added that this needed further analysis by experts because these types of returns could have been caused by electromagnetic interference.

It turned out that only one F-16 camera had made satisfactory radar recordings, so comparison between the aircraft recordings was not possible. This was a serious problem. A comparison would have allowed us to exclude those returns that were caused by electromagnetic interference, because the data from such interference are never the same on two different radars. Therefore, we couldn’t be sure if the radar echoes were caused by electromagnetic interference or by something unusual.

The conclusion of the Air Force, therefore, was that the evidence was insufficient to prove that there were real crafts in the air on that occasion.

The Air Force’s decision that the evidence was insufficient to conclude that there were unusual air activities during the night of March 30, 1990, was gleefully accepted by the irrational skeptics and the debunkers, who immediately claimed that that whole Belgian UAP wave was a farce. For them, one explainable case is enough to discredit the more than five hundred remaining unexplainable sightings—a position that is still put forward by most of them today.

In 1990, the Air Force stated on several occasions that it had no explanation for the numerous sightings. Today, persistent skeptics, who make a point of publicizing their positions, have come forward with a theory that these were helicopters. At the time of the UAP wave, the Belgian Air Force was working with civil aviation authorities and had more than 300 aircraft—including helicopters—several ground radar stations, 500 pilots, more than 300 engineers, 100 controllers, and thousands of technicians, etc., but we were not able to find the answer.

Even so, a few unqualified debunkers claim to have found that answer. Their real objective is to misinform people, create confusion, and ridicule UAP sightings. Some witnesses who made reports in 1989 are still hounded and discredited to this day. No wonder that several witnesses didn’t dare to reveal their names; some didn’t even take the risk of reporting their sightings. I had personal experience with two different people—a journalist and a NATO employee—whom I knew for many years: They verbally reported two sensational sightings but didn’t want (or dare) to put anything on paper.

The approach to the UAP problem has to be critical but objective. Indeed, we are dealing with a very important question: Is our airspace being violated by unknown intruders? False claims and disinformation by people trying to ridicule the UAP phenomenon are made use of by those who refuse to accept that some sightings remain unexplainable and could possibly be some kind of unknown technology. Sadly, this not only strongly impacts the witnesses, but it also diminishes the sense of responsibility within government. None of our political leaders want to be involved in UAP issues. Knowing that the vast majority of the population is more concerned with their immediate and short-term needs, political leaders focus on resolving these problems as opposed to longer-term, strategic issues. They avoid any connection with UAP because they are afraid of being ridiculed and losing credibility with the public. It is perceived to be like a hot potato—don’t touch it or you will burn your fingers.

The vast majority of military leaders almost automatically reject any responsibility for investigating UAP sightings, because this does not figure in their terms of reference. They devote all their time and energy to the ongoing operations and don’t feel concerned about issues on which they have no firm grip. In addition, if not experiencing any direct threat from unidentified aerial phenomena—to my knowledge, no recent security incidents have been reported—investigations of UAP sightings are not on the priority list of military commanders, and they will not initiate investigations. UAP reports are considered as a hindrance, a time-consuming interference with normal routines.

One easy way for the authorities to stop the flow of annoying questions is to give a false explanation for reported phenomena, as has been done many times. To a certain extent, such tactics work to hush up the hype, in particular if there is only one event. But this does not deal with the substance of the problem. On the contrary, it creates an atmosphere of distrust and suspicion between those who witnessed the event and the responsible authorities.

For the military, it becomes more problematic when the events occur not just once but multiple times. The defense authorities are under pressure to provide an acceptable answer. Unfortunately, during the Belgian UAP wave, no such answer could be found.

There is only one solution and this is to tell the truth. The truth is that the Air Force could not determine the origin of the objects witnessed by thousands of people. It is not easy to admit that authorities in charge of air defense and airspace management are not capable of finding an acceptable explanation, but, in my opinion, this is better than issuing false explanations. The Belgian government was honest and acknowledged publicly that it could not explain the many sightings.

Nevertheless, military authorities should not wait to take action until they are forced to do so by the public and the media. They should be concerned about the possible security implications of unusual air activities. If reliable witnesses report the presence of UAP that have not been picked up or identified by the civil aviation authorities and the air defense systems, it should be admitted that there may be a problem and an effort should be made to conduct more in-depth investigations with qualified experts.

What if these crafts had more aggressive intentions? Who would have been responsible if incidents had occurred? The question remains: Which military authority dares to tackle this problem, or rather, which military authority dares to recognize that there is a problem? Is this “ostrich” policy the right approach?

Formally investigating reliable UFO reports would create an atmosphere of openness and transparency, and motivate other witnesses to come forward with their experiences. Such investigations would provide the scientific basis for relevant authorities to express an official opinion vis-à-vis the UFO problem. However, it seems a wake-up call will be required for us to formally acknowledge that there is a problem. A major accident would serve as such a wake-up call, but this is not what we hope for; on the contrary, this is something that we want to prevent. We must all be prepared for the next UFO wave, wherever it may occur.