Belgian UFO wave 1989-1992 – Part 3

The 30-31 March 1990 UFO chase

One of the most publicized aspects of the Belgian UFO wave was the 30-31 March 1990 F-16 chase of an unknown radar return. This event constituted an important part of the Belgian wave, as it provided an array of good quality data from multiple credible sources about what was going on in the sky. Furthermore, this led to further cooperation between the Belgian military and the SOBEPS civilian UFO organization. Also, the personal involvement of the military in charge, the then Colonel De Brouwer (who became Major General a few years later) continued through a friendly collaboration with the SOBEPS for a number years afterward. But most importantly, it was further confirmation that whatever was happening, it could not be explained away, and thus re-confirmed the anomalistic nature of the phenomenon.

To understand better the context of that night of March 1990, a general overview of the UFO chase is presented. It is followed by a first assessment of the Belgian UFO wave based on the available data, including the observation spikes previously presented. But first, here is the general chronology of events from the SOBEPS book, in the chapter written by Bougard & Clerebaut, 1991 (with page numbers in parentheses):

On 30 March, around 2300, the Belgian police was called by an off-duty police officer, who observed with his wife and another couple UFOs in formation seen in the night sky in the area general area of Wavre. It was, once again, the “unplanely” appearance and behavior that caught their attention. The objects were described as moving in an unpredictable way, with lights appearing and disappearing, and changing color to include white, blue, red, and green. The witness then called the Beauvechain military base and at that point the lights became slower, and maybe stationary, and turned into a red color. The witness was told to contact Glons NATO radar station instead, as Beauvechain was on minimum manning because it was the weekend, which he did (p. 180). Wavre is about midway between Brussels and Namur, while Glons is about 15 km north of Liege (see map).

At 2305, the Belgian military, in turn, called the police to get confirmation that the call received from the witness was indeed corroborated by the police itself (p. 226). This procedure was established in the weeks prior to the events, given the costs involved in sending airplanes investigating any unknown.

At around 2315, two police officers arrived and met the witnesses. These officers were not only able to confirm the first observation by seeing the lights in the sky, but they also saw two more UFOs with white lights disposed in a triangular formation. Then, an aircraft passed above the UFOs and its lights moved away from each other and turned red. Once the aircraft passed, the lights took back their original formation and color (p. 181). Around the same time, the Glons NATO radar station had a first return with an unknown (p. 226).

At 2325, the police asked other units by radio if they could confirm the observations too, and two other teams (with two and three officers, respectively) corroborated the first observations by visual observations (p. 182-184). The military was then informed by the police that they had more than one visual confirmations, with a total of eight police officers (one off-duty) and three civilians from three different locations.

At 2349, a second ground radar station further west had also a return from an unknown, at Semmerzake (p. 226). Semmerzake is just south of Ghent (please see map).

At 2356, the Belgian military decides that it had enough evidence to warrant further investigation, and two F-16 fighter jets were ordered to scramble and identify the unknown (p. 226). At 0005 (31 March), the two F-16 fighter jets took off (p. 226).

 

From 0007 to 0054, 9 interceptions in total were attempted by the F-16. There were three brief combat radar locks-on from the F-16, which in each case caused a swift change of behavior from the UFO. No visual contact was ever made by the pilots (p. 226). The police on the ground, however, was in constant communication with the Glons radar station to provide them with visual descriptions of what they were seeing during the chase.

• At 0013, the first combat radar lock-on occurred, but in 3 seconds the object went from 150 to 970 knots (280 km/h to 1890 km/h) and dropped from 9000 to 5000 feet. A few seconds later it returned to 11000 feet and quickly to down to ground level (p. 227).

• At 0030, there is the second lock-on for 6 seconds; the combat radar system very briefly showed a jamming signal on the in-flight screen (p. 227). At the same time, police officers and witnesses on the ground saw the lights of the F-16 turning around in the sky, while most of the UFO lights went off (p. 227).

• At 0037, the last lock-on happened, lasting only a few seconds (p. 227).

• Between 0045 and 0100, the fighter jets still tried several interceptions again, but to no avail (pp. 227-228).

• At 0102, the F-16 fighter jets returned to their base (p. 228).

• At 0106, the police informed the military that a similar observation was made at Joidoigne (p. 228). Joidoigne is about 20 km east of Wavre (see map).

• At 0130, witnesses (including police officers) reported that the last lights in the sky were gone (p. 186).

• Beyond the police officers and the civilian witnesses already noted, at least 7 other reports confirmed the observations of the night (pp. 197-190).

After these events, the Belgian military launched an investigation to understand what happened. This led to the drafting of the Lambrechts Report (from the name of the author, a Major in the Belgian military), and an English version is available here. The Belgian military could not find an explanation to what happened. In June of the same year, the Report was publically released and the Belgian military made all their data available for further analysis by SOBEPS and whoever is interested in studying them.[1]

Human and human-made sensing

The Belgian UFO wave, like any such wave, was made of many events that bring a wide array of data that are baffling. The reports from the observation spike days brought a multitude of data that cannot be easily collated into a coherent picture. There were many different shapes observed, different light arrangements and colors, sometime with noise other times without, etc. The UFO chase ended up raising more questions than producing answers. So, is there any pattern that emerged from these strange events?

One pattern emerging from all this is that what the human senses were able to capture and what the human-made sensors recorded is divergent. The Lambrechts Report underlined two particularly interesting aspects of the UFO chase. One is that “Though speeds greater than the sound barrier have been measured several times, not any bang has been noticed. Here also, no explanation can be given”[2], and “Though the different ground witnesses have effectively pointed out eight points in the sky, the radars have registered only one contact at the same time. The points have been seen at a distance one from another sufficient for them to be distinguished by the radars also. No plausible explanation can be put forward”[3].

On the 30-31 March UFO chase, the SOBEPS did some analysis of its own, and a few interesting points emerged there too. The Glons radar station had an unidentified between about 2315 and 0020, and it was moving from East to West in a relatively straight line at an average speed of 41 km/h, between Brussels and Mons. The Semmerzake radar station confirmed these tracking from Glons (Meessen, 1991b: 364-365). The Belgian military officer in charge of the UFO investigation, De Brouwer, wrote in the SOBEPS book that in spite of having a lock-on on their combat radars, the F-16 avionics did not provide a location for what the radars were sensing, as it should normally do, raising the question as whether the jets were chasing electromagnetic perturbations. Yet, in light of the numerous eye witnesses’ reports, it appeared to him that the F-16s were indeed chasing something real (De Brouwer, 1991: 489). 

Hence, we had a situation where:

1.       The ground witnesses and fighter pilots were dealing with several objects with fast and unpredictable behaviors, while ground radars had a return from something moving slow and in relatively straight line.

2.       The fighter pilots did not see anything visually, and their on board equipment were showing something that produced a return (which guided their pursuit) and yet without identifying any actual physical location for it.

3.       The witnesses noted that the phenomenon continued after the jets were gone around Joidoigne, which is further east of the UFO chase events while the UFO was tracked as moving west towards the French border.

4.       The discrepancy between the ground radar stations and the human witnesses actually happened before. On 21 December 1989, the Belgian Ministry of Defense released a public statement that the visual observations reported to the police did not correlate with radar tracking, and F-16 patrolled the areas in question and had no contact with unknown objects, (the Ministry of Defense confirmed that there were no AWACS, US stealth aircrafts, or military drone in the areas where reporting was coming from (Bougard & Clerebaut, 1991: 126)).

The photographic evidence was overall quite similar in terms of what the human eye could see and what was captured by cameras. Many witnesses thought they had a good shot at what they were seeing, and yet the picture never turned out with anything more than vague lights in the sky. Here are some of the comments from the various witnesses who took pictures: the picture taken were incorrectly developed afterward (Bougard & Clerebaut, 1991: 94); the Camcorder inexplicably did not filmed while the witness thought he was filming (Ibid, 98); the pictures taken showed nothing that could be seen after being developed (Ibid., 99); the film showed an indistinct white light, like a distress flare (Ibid., 98); an imprecise picture was taken, but one could see anything he wanted into it (Ibid., 106).

One of the most interesting photographic events of the wave happened at Trooz, near Liege, on 11 December 1989 (second spike of observations) to a family (three adults and the two teenage kids) who saw a white and powerful but strange light at around 1745. After watching it for several minutes, two of the adults decided to drive to get a closer look. They watched it for another 15 minutes from a high point. Then, they decided to go back home. But the lights came back, and they could see a powerful “search light” in front of an object with two with lights at the extremities showing a triangular shaped object, with a row of red lights at the back. The object was by then right above the house, at an estimated altitude of 50 meters. One of the adults took three pictures of the object before it quickly moved away.  And yet, once the film was developed it was showing only a white vapor on one picture, a trace of something on the second one, and nothing on the third one (Ibid., 84-85)!

These numerous discrepancies between what the human senses could capture and what human-made devices could record, led many pseudo-sceptics quickly to conclude that all this was simply mass delusion, and wishful thinking. And as usual, the pseudo-sceptics did not bother trying to explain how several minutes of up close observations from many witnesses, from different locations, oftentimes not knowing each other could have produced a “mass delusion” (let alone detailed military investigations on the UFO chase). Once more, the anomaly remains an anomal

 

Yet, these events remain a full-fledge anomaly, however, only if one key implicit assumption is maintained, namely that reality exists only in one unified strata. Science has long proven that this assumption is actually wrong. For instance, the human eye can only see the visible spectrum of light but this does not prevent other forms of light to exist in the ultra-violent and infrared spectrum, each requiring its own specialized piece of equipment to detect. At the more complex level, one can think of the completely different stratum of molecular biology, bio-chemistry, physiology, living being behaviors, and ecology as representing as many different layers of a same reality that cannot be reduced to one another. Multiple layers of reality co-exist and they require their own sensing and analysis to detect and understand.

 

 

Based on the large amount of evidence collected through the Belgian UFO wave, it is reasonable to say that “something” happened. Yet, that “something” had both a physical dimension that could be recorded by cameras and radars, and another dimension that could be captured by the human mind. The recordings from cameras and radars were analyzed extensively by the SOBEPS, the Belgian military and others, and the main conclusions are that it was something real but ephemeral, elusive, and possibly not even physically “hard” (De Brouwer, 1991: 489). Yet, what the human mind captured during the Belgian wave was described at length but it remains relatively under-studied. It is where an analysis from the perspective of parapsychology and parasociology might actually shed some light on what happened.

Notes

[1] Interestingly, the SOBEPS leadership visited the Glons radar station at the invitation of the Belgian military on 22 January 1990 (Bougard & Clerebaut, 1991: 143).

[2] From the English translation of the report found at http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc408.htm

[3] Idem.

 

References

Bougard, Michel and Lucien Clerebaut. (1991). "Chronique d'une vague". In SOBEPS, Vague d'OVNI sur la Belgique: Un dossier exceptionnel. Bruxelles: SOBEPS, pp. 51-296.

De Brouwer, Wilfried. (1991). " Postface".  In SOBEPS, Vague d'OVNI sur la Belgique: Un dossier exceptionnel. Bruxelles: SOBEPS., pp. 483-492.

Meessen, Auguste. (1991b). "La détection radar". In SOBEPS, Vague d'OVNI sur la Belgique: Un dossier exceptionnel. Bruxelles: SOBEPS., pp. 351-396.

Marian Apparitions at El-Zeitoun and Social Psi (Part 3)

The events of Zeitoun - the qualitative view

As discussed in the previous post, it is difficult to depict an accurate picture of the events of Zeitoun in terms of their objective scope and magnitude. However, the existing written material provides a relatively rich corpus describing the qualitative dimension of the events. Although this corpus was essentially created by believers, it is significant enough to offer important points of reference for anyone interested in analyzing the events, even from a non-religious perspective. However, to be able to use this material properly, the non-religious perspective needs first to be put in its proper perspective.

The most significant criticism put forward against the religious interpretation of the events was the article published by Persinger and Derr, which attributes the anomalous activities to geomagnetism, in light of the tectonic strain theory [1]. Persinger and Derr were able to establish a relatively significant correlation between seismic activities in the region and the events in Zeitoun.

This criticism is important as it provides an important clue to understand what happened in Zeitoun, but it is far from being enough to close the case, as a pseudo-sceptic article written by Bartholomew and Goode implies [2]. Persinger and Derr’s article is problematic on a number of levels. First, as discussed in the previous post, the exact number and dates of occurrence for the apparitions at Zeitoun are not known, and hence their correlation analysis could only be done with a very incomplete dataset. Second, as Persinger admits, the tectonic strain theory cannot account for specific anomalous occurrences, but only for clusters of occurrences [3]. Last, but not least is how one can account for a geomagnetic phenomenon happening nearly one hundred times, at the same place, over a three year period, and only at night? Any answer to this question is clearly beyond the tectonic strain theory.

If the religious interpretation of events is not satisfying for those who are not taking a religious approach, it is also clear that a pseudo-sceptic interpretation where the tectonic strain theory is stretch beyond its explanatory power is not warranted either.

What can be proposed, however, is that geomagnetism provides an important enabling condition for the phenomenon to occur, but it is not sufficient in itself to fully explain the phenomenon. As discussed previously on this blog, electromagnetism and geomagnetism oftentimes tend to be associated with UFO and psi events [4]. It is in this context that the qualitative descriptions of the events of Zeitoun are useful, as they point towards the notion that geomagnetism was indeed involved, but that “something else” needs to be included in the explanation. That “something  else” might actually be what has been discussed on this blob, and elsewhere, as a “social psi” effect [5]. But first, let’s look at the qualitative data.

There are six main qualitative aspects than can be identified about the Zeitoun events: (a) the so-called light “birds”, (b) the smell of incense, (c) the clouds, (d) phosphorescent-like luminosity, (e) the scintillating lights or “stars”, and (f) the main luminescent object (i.e. the apparition).

The light “birds”

Many witnesses reported that there were luminous objects that traveled through the sky of Zeitoun [6], which were at first construed as “birds” but were clearly not birds. Their actual nature remains unknown to this day. They were described as follow:

"Another phenomenon witnessed by the spectators is the appearance of bird-like creatures before, during, and after the apparitions, and sometimes on nights when there is no apparition at all. These creatures in some ways resemble doves. They are larger than doves; they are larger even than pigeons. Whence they come or whither they go no one can determine. It is known, says the keeper of the Cairo zoo, that pigeons do not fly at night. But these can hardly be any kind of natural bird.

First of all they fly much too rapidly. They fly without ever moving their wings. (Only one spectator interviewed thought he saw one bird flap its wings.) They seem to glide before, into, and around the apparitions. They never come to rest on the roof or trees, and on some occasions have been seen to disintegrate in the sky like wisps of cloud.

Varying in number on different nights, they have appeared singly, in twos, threes, and larger groups. Always in some kind of formation, the creatures fly in triangle, sometimes in the formation of a cross. Once twelve of them flew six abreast in two rows.

Not only are these birds spotless white; they themselves emit light. They are like electrically illuminated birds which can be seen both in the brilliant light of the apparition and in the darkness of the sky above the apparition. They disappear as mysteriously as they appear and without sound of any kind."[7]

Another description is from Bishop Gregorius on the apparitions that took place between 27 April and 15 May 1968:

“Before the apparitions took place some birds that look like pigeons--I don't know what they are--appear in different formations. Sometimes two appear on the dome just as if they had come out of it. However, the dome is closed; the windows do not open. They might be seen flying eastward, then wheeling about and flying to the west, and while one watches them, they suddenly disappear. […]

They do not flap their wings; they glide. In a flash they appeared; and disappear the same way. They did not fly away but above and around the center dome. They did not fly away but above and around the center dome. They stay quite near and are close to the church when they vanish. Whatever formation they take, they keep. Sometimes as many as seven of them fly in the formation of a cross. They appear and disappear in this formation. They fly very swiftly. They are not light on one side, but are completely lighted. One does not see feathers at all--just something  lighted. They are radiating creatures, larger in size than a dove or a pigeon. Sometimes as one of them flies lower, it gets larger and larger. People realize these are not pigeons." [8]

Lastly, let’s mention that there is a famous photograph of these “birds” taken by Wagih Risk (shown below). However, the photograph was analyzed in detail by Vern Miller of the Brooks Institute of Photography of Santa Barbara, California in the 1990s, and it became clear that although it was a genuine picture of the phenomenon, the individual object’s shape is likely to have been altered to look like “birds” [9].

In themselves, these objects seem unexplainable, but if one keeps in mind that in April and May 1968 there was significant seismologic activity in Egypt [10], then a different picture emerges. Strange lights in formation have been noted in the Idu Peninsula (Japan) during the earthquakes of November 1930 and in 1957 during an earthquake in Leicestershire, England [11]. It is interesting to note that some of the early UFO sightings involving some sort of “flight formations” have an earthquake dimension as well. The famous Lubbock sighting of 25 August 1951, in northern Texas, were interpreted by some as being “birds”[12], and there was some significant seismic activity in the area in June of the same year [13]. The famous Washington D.C. sightings of 19-20 July 1952, where UFOs in formation were observed on radar screen, occurred just one day before a major earthquake in California with a magnitude of 7.6 [14]. Another case is the one of a pilot who saw seven objects in formation while flying between New Zealand and Australia on 13 January 1965 [15], which occurred at the same time of a wave of earthquakes in New Zealand [16]. More recently, UFO flight formations were reported in Chile on 12 and 25 September 2011 [17]; there was also a 5.9 earthquake near the coast of Chile on 14 September 2011, and another one of 5.6 magnitude on 28 September  2011 [18].

Lastly, we can compare the “flight formations” of Zeitoun to the description of the famous UFO sighting of Kenneth Arnold of 24 June 1947. As Devereux noted,

 “a brilliant flash of light occurred, centered on an area where Arnold saw nine bright lights. These traveled in an undulating fashion between (in all) three peaks of the Cascade mountains, hugging the terrain, frequently giving off brilliant blue-white flashes, usually preceding a change of motion. As Arnold obtained a closer view of them, the lights showed themselves to be generally discoid in shape, though with variations which may have been due to shape-changing characteristics, or difficulty of definition at long distances on Arnold’s part. The light varied in intensity, and maintained a rough formation. […] The location where the incident took place also speaks volumes. The Cascades Mountains are located directly on a tectonic plate margin.” [19]

A number of preliminary remarks need to be made here, before going further. It is clear that the science of earth-generated luminous objects is still in its infancy. Persinger proposed what he called the “tectonic strain theory” to explain the presence of luminous objects in the sky, as discussed above. The tectonic strain theory allows for objects to be seen far away from the epicenter of a seismic event, and it can happen a few days before or after such event. On the other hand, Devereux and his earthlight theory can only account for light near a geological fault. Both theories are based on different assumptions, and so they are not mutually exclusive but both have a limited empirical base to support themselves.

From a qualitative standpoint, the so-called “birds“ flying in formation share interesting resemblances with UFO events that occurred in space or time where geomagnetism seems to be more active than normal. This does not mean in any way or fashion that those “birds” should be considered as coming from outer space. Quite to the contrary, it points to a common enabling set of conditions that is generated from the Earth.

Yet, as stated above, both the tectonic strain theory and the earth light theory cannot account for the concentrated nature of the Zeitoun events. To have “birds” flying in formation at the exact same place for months is beyond pure geophysics. As well, why luminous lights would travel in formation is also beyond the explanatory power of these two theories.

The study of the qualitative dimension will be continued in the next post. 

Notes for part 3

[1] As proposed by Persinger, Michael & J. S. Derr. (1989). “Geophysical variables and behavior: LIV. Zeitoun (Egypt) apparitions of the Virgin Mary as tectonic strain-induced luminosities”. Perception and Motor Skills 68(1): 123-128.

[2] Bartholomew, Robert E. and Erich Goode. (2000). “Mass delusions: prominent cases over the last 5 centuries”. Skeptical Inquirer 24(3). [On line at http://www.skeptically.org/skepticism/id11.html], accessed 17 Aug 2011.

[3] Persinger, Michael A. (1985). “Geophysical variables and behavior: XXVI. A response to Rutkowski's critique of the tectonic strain hypothesis for UFO phenomena”. Perception and Motor Skills 60(2): 575-582.

[4] For a substantive discussion on this issue, please refer to “The Materiality of UFOs” on Internet at: http://www.psican.org/alpha/index.php?/20090308225/Ufological-Information/The-Materiality-Of-UFOs.html

[5] Ouellet, Eric. (2011). “Social Psi and Parasociology”. Australian Journal of Parapsychology 11(1): 73-88.

[6] Among others see Palmer, Jerome. (1969). Our Lady returns to Egypt. San Bernardino, CA: Culligan Publ.; Nil, Michel. (1979). L'apparition miraculeuse de la Saint Vierge à Zeitoun, 1968-1969. Paris, Ed. Tequi; Zaki, Pearl. (1977). Our Lord's Mother Visits Egypt in 1968 & 1969. Cairo, Egypt: Dar El Alam El Arabi.

[7] Palmer, pp. 12-13.

[8] Palmer, pp. 24-26.

[9] Kamel, Youssef G., John P. Jackson & Rebecca Jackson. (1996). A Lady of Light Appears in Egypt. Colorado Springs: St. Mark's Avenue Press, p. 223.

[10] See  Persinger, Michael & J. S. Derr.

[11] Devereux, Paul. (1989). Earth Lights Revelation. London: Blandford, pp. 22.

[12] Clark, Jerome. (1988). "The Lubbock Lights", in The UFO Book. Detroit: Visible Ink Press, pp. 342-350.

[13] Northrop, Stuart A. and Allan R. Sanford. (1972). “Earthquakes of Northeastern New Mexico

and the Texas Panhandle”. New Mexico Geological Society Guidebook 23:  148-160.

[14] See Housner, G.W. (1953). “Analysis of the Taft accelerogram of the earthquake of 21 July 1952”. Office of Naval Research, 5^th Technical Report (N6 onr-244). Pasadena: California Institute of Technology, p. 16.

[15] See http://www.ufocusnz.org.nz/content/1965---Pilots-Sight-%E2%80%98V-shaped%E2%80%99-UFO-Formation/83.aspx

[16] Gibowicz, S. J. (1974). “Two earthquake swarms on the Kermadec Ridge”. New Zealand Journal of Geology and Geophysics 17(4): 913-927.

[17] See http://onlysecrecy.com/videos/latest-ufo-videos/ufo-sighted-over-santiago-chile-25th-sep-2011/4316/

[18] From a query on IRIS (Incorporated Research Institutions of Seismology) at http://www.iris.edu/data/.

[19] Devereux, p. 54.