Talk:Belgian UFO wave

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Paranormal This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.ParanormalWikipedia:WikiProject ParanormalTemplate:WikiProject Paranormalparanormal articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Skepticism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Belgium Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Belgium, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Belgium on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BelgiumWikipedia:WikiProject BelgiumTemplate:WikiProject BelgiumBelgium-related articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

There is currently a template on the main article that says the neutrality of article is disputed and says to come here to see the dispute. But there is nothing here about a dispute. Does anyone know what should be done?WakeUpPoindexter (talk) 20:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, if nobody objects I will remove the template tomorrow.WakeUpPoindexter (talk) 07:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the template was added due to the conclusions section. I created the article, but the information of the section was taken from this section of the black triangle ufos article. As most of the controversial content was removed, so should be the template. Victao lopes (talk) 21:16, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I will remove the template. But the conclusions section, although not very well written and not referenced, was just the conclusions reached by the Belgian Air Force as stated in their report on the incident. That should be OK to include, no? WakeUpPoindexter (talk) 23:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the conclusions are still there. Only the statements trying to deny the explanations were removed, because they may be original search. Victao lopes (talk) 23:45, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, didn't make myself clear. The assessment and rejection of those suggestions (balloons, aircraft, lasers etc.) that was previously in the article, was made by the Belgian Air Force in their report. You can see an English translation of the report here [1]. WakeUpPoindexter (talk) 10:43, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I believe they were indeed referenced. They'd only need a rewriting to keep a neutral point of view. Victao lopes (talk) 18:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The English-language article on this page is a clear hit piece. The Dutch-language article on this subject details the events as they really happened -- including the information about the only (but fake photograph) of an alleged ship -- as well as the real conclusion of the Belgian authorities, based upon the radar footage and the sworn testimonies of over one thousand gendarmes and tens of thousands of other witnesses on the ground, a couple hundreds of whom were military personnel, and of those, a number of them under direct NATO command.

The weapons radar locks by the F-16s were also definitely not on each other. The erratic maneuvers and sudden acceleration and altitude changes of the pursued object -- there were actually two objects, but only one was pursued by the jets -- were registered on radar and recorded by both the jets and the flight controllers of each of the two Belgian Air Force bases that had spotted the craft on radar -- they were also spotted by a Dutch Air Force base just across the border -- and this footage was shown in a press conference by (now retired) Colonel Wilfried De Brouwer of the Belgian Air Force on television in prime time.

It is also absolutely wrong that nobody had filed any sightings other than the military. That's how come the gendarmes got involved, and how they got to witness the triangular craft themselves. One of the craft even hovered over the city where the gendarmes' dispatcher's office was, and he witnesses the craft itself, along with a red-glowing object that descended from the larger craft, toured a couple of city blocks and then rejoined the larger craft.

All of this stuff (and more) is on official record and publicly available. The English-language Wikipedia article makes a blind and uninformed mockery of the whole event. But then again, perhaps that was the intent?

My apologies for posting this anonymously, but I am a very busy man -- busy in other areas than UFO/UAP research, although I do have a mild interest in the subject -- and I can afford neither the time nor the energy to devote myself to maintaining and/or discussing Wikipedia articles. But such a grotesquely misleading and debunking attempt as this particular article -- again, the https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgische_ufogolf article reports the real events of that particular evening, and I myself was watching the news in real-time as things unfolded, so I know -- is below the standards of Wikipedia as a neutral information source.

F. 2A02:1812:2C2C:A900:1A4A:6394:D82B:9F8E (talk) 05:27, 25 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus... There's a ton of disinformation in this article, I don't even know where they got the bragg phenomenon explanation, and how is it happening in the incident and the proof, I have to remind everyone that there was a conference where they showed HUD video of the crafts. You can see in the video that there was no possible radar lock on each other, they already had the attitude, and distance of the objects identified.. The objects were accelerating at impossible speeds and reaching high attitudes in a few seconds... Diegofisgondev (talk) 17:47, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I also have to tell you people that the photo has not be proven false, there's literally no way prove it false or true because the photographer who took it was anonymous, and the guy who said it was faked didn't even show proof until time later which is very suspicious.. He had all the time to invent a story. Diegofisgondev (talk) 17:48, 25 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article was originally created with the first paragraph of the first section using a reference from the Sunday Express' article (actually, the article was found in ufoevidence.com, which states this is from Sunday Express). A few months ago, User talk:JMA1 removed it in this edit and added another paragraph, with totally different data from a publication of SOBEPS, stating the former information is false. For me, the Sunday Express sounds more reliable giving the non-relation with the subject. But before I undo his edits, I'd like to see other editors' opinions. I already asked JMA1 for more explanations regarding this edits, but no answers were returned in the last 20 days. Victor Lopes (talk) 20:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So long as changes satisfy wp:verifiable I don't think many people will mind. Personally though I wouldn't consider ufoevidence.com a reliable source, and would want to reference directly to the Sunday Express article. My view? Insert {{fact}} tags on the end of every single paragraph without an inline citation, give it a month or two, and if no action is taken, remove all the offending material. Parrot of Doom (talk) 02:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Following your suggestions, I've reverted his edit (after much more than a month or two). As there was a reference, the {{fact}} template wasn't really appliable, I suppose. Victão Lopes ^{I hear you...} 21:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Dunning is hardly a credible reference in view of the fact that: A) the man has no scientific background and B) he has been convicted for fraud. https://skepchick.org/2014/08/brian-dunning-sentenced-to-15-months-in-prison-for-fraud/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2403:6200:8856:7287:2DE6:60B1:7224:E92A (talk) 12:00, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have done a little bit on this small section of the article in attempt to clean it up. However, some aspects may require further research. For example, the previous version cited http://www.conspiration.cc/sujets/ovni/ovni_retraite50ans.htm as a source of results from a simulation "proving" that the 3-dimensional trajectory of the image was not possible -- However when I viewed this source, no mention is made of what was previously claimed in the article. For this reason I have been forced to remove that paragraph.

When the section is read back now however, there is clearly some information lacking - It seems strange that any professional scientist would question the shake of an object without taking into consideration the shake of the camera. This leads me to question whether perhaps some meaning from the source article has been lost in translation (either this, or an incorrect article has been cited with regard to this aspect and another should be sought). It would be good if, as a first step, a native Belgian speaker could take a proper look at the source to double check this. Marmouse999 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:53, 24 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]

The shake of the camera was taken into consideration by scientists, but there are some scientists who became blinds and lacked any wariness because they were obsessed by ETs. The article written by Pierre Magain in Physicalia Magazine (in french) will give you all the reason to became convinced that this picture was a forgery. I have studied in France (trough a centre of distance teaching) but I live in Belgium and go regularly in England.Titi2 (talk) 12:09, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Auguste Meessen is known in Belgium to be a good lecturer and good teacher in relatity. But he is not a prominent sholar and has committed very important mistakes in ufology (e.g. fr:Cas de Nort-sur-Erdre,fr:Photo de Petit-Rechain. In Belgium others scientists have emitted very agressive remarks because he is most influenced by faith than by reason and because his approach is not scientific. So I suggest to erase references about his commentaries. The situation would be different if he publishs anything in a scientifis review.Titi2 (talk) 10:55, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to start cleaning up this mess if no-one else bothers to in the next few days. The section is ridiculously under refd and needs immediate improvements. The numbers of witnesses, the way it has been written and POV are all dubious, though for now I will concentrate on the refs.

Many of the sources used in the article also seem to be of dubious reliability. Chaosdruid (talk) 02:27, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"In April 1990, a photo of a triangular object upon which three lights are visible at each corner was taken by Patrick M. Since then, Patrick M. came out and stated publicly that the picture was a hoax by him."

Whether or not it is a hoax, the accompanying picture does not seem to be the one described. In the picture there is clearly only one light visible at each corner, not three. Hundovir (talk) 18:06, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Three lights are visible at each corner" fairly clearly to me means one at each corner totaling three - with a missing comma explaining the confusion "three light are visible, at each corner" would make better grammatic sense, but as its a quote we can't change it. Either way, whether it is meant to be three lights at each corner for total 9 or one at each corner for total 3, the confusion means we can't tell either way from the quote alone if the picture in the article is the one being referenced 146.194.55.5 (talk) 11:08, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The correct form would be "Three lights are visible, one at each corner." Hundovir (talk) 15:55, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Belgian UFO wave. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120128025219/http://home.comcast.net:80/~tprinty/UFO/SUNlite3_4.pdf to http://home.comcast.net/~tprinty/UFO/SUNlite3_4.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.bnd.com/2013/07/13/2692946/althoff-grad-writes-book-about.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:59, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Belgian UFO wave. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140824010135/http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc404.htm to http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc404.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:52, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Belgian UFO wave. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071117015630/http://ufos.about.com/od/trianglecasefiles/p/belgium.htm to http://ufos.about.com/od/trianglecasefiles/p/belgium.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:19, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

tried a quick tidy up, as there are virtually no refs, and the few there are seem to be ignored. People just posting whatever they want with no proof at all it seems — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:216:7400:B1C3:6C2:D9AF:ED91 (talk) 13:19, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article has accumulated a lot of unsourced commentary, asides to the reader, and fringe argumentation. I've removed a great deal of it. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:35, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]