by Leslie Kean
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 co
mmanders, 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.
CHAPTER 3
Pilots: A Unique Window into the Unknown
The Belgian UFOs did not appear to create any kind of safety hazard for aircraft in flight, as far as we know, and General De Brouwer made it clear that the objects displayed no threatening behavior. Yet, as I stated in the second point to be considered in the Introduction, this is not always the case. Some of our most compelling reports on UFO encounters have been provided by Air Force and commercial pilots, and sometimes aviation safety is compromised.
Shortly after publishing my first story about the COMETA Report in the Boston Globe, I became interested in the question of UFOs and aviation safety. After all, if these things really are out there, one would expect that at least some pilots would see dazzling light displays while flying at night, or maybe giant triangles in the daytime, or metallic discs speeding by the cockpit window. In fact, wouldn’t they be more likely to see them than anyone else? Perhaps passengers might even be at risk if they found themselves too close to an unpredictable unidentified flying object. One could easily imagine that witnessing such a thing at 35,000 feet—something with no wings but much faster and more agile than the lumbering jet aircraft holding one prisoner—must be considerably more unnerving than viewing the same object with one’s feet safely planted on the ground. But beyond simply seeing one, could they be dangerous?
Much to my amazement, I quickly discovered that a ninety-page report dealing with this very question had just been released by the world’s most qualified researcher of pilot encounters with UFOs. Even better, I recognized that this well-documented scientific study could serve as the “news hook” for another story, in the same way that the COMETA Report had done before. “Aviation Safety in America—A Previously Neglected Factor” by Dr. Richard Haines, a retired senior research scientist from NASA Ames Research Center and former chief of NASA’s Space Human Factors Branch, was a mind-boggling study, with more than fifty pages of case summaries involving pilots and their crews.1 That “neglected factor,” of course, referred to unidentified aerial phenomena, or UAP.2
The report featured over one hundred cases of pilot encounters with a variety of these UAP, including fifty-six near misses, all affecting the safety of aircraft. Most cases involved multiple witnesses, and many were backed by ground radio communications and radar corroboration. Experienced pilots presented accounts of objects, ranging from silver discs to green fireballs, flying loops around passenger aircraft, pacing alongside despite pilots’ evasive attempts, or flooding cockpits with blinding light. Dr. Haines documented cases of electromagnetic effects on aircraft navigation and operating systems linked to nearby UFOs, or a pilot’s sudden dive to avoid a collision. He wrote that a crew’s ability to perform its duties safely is disrupted when crew members are faced with “extremely bizarre, unexpected and prolonged luminous and/or solid phenomena cavorting near their aircraft.” The danger posed by the phenomenon in flight lies more with the human response to it than from the actions of the UAP itself, because the objects do not appear to be aggressive or hostile, and seem to be able to avoid collisions by executing last-minute high-speed turns in a flash.
Dr. Haines, who has authored more than seventy papers in leading scientific journals and published over twenty-five U.S. government reports for NASA, specialized in human performance, technology design, and human-computer interaction while at NASA. Having contributed to the U.S. Gemini and Apollo projects, as well as Skylab and Space Station, in 1988 he retired from his twenty-one years as a senior aerospace scientist at NASA Ames Research Center. Subsequently he worked as a senior research scientist for the Research Institute for Advanced Computer Science, RECOM Technologies, Inc., and Raytheon Corp. at NASA Ames Research Center until 2001.
Haines unexpectedly became interested in the UFO subject back in the 1960s, when he was conducting research involving flight simulators for NASA. As he explains it, commercial pilots would volunteer to come into his facility and fly the simulators for studies on aviation safety, avionics, and many other areas. “From time to time a pilot would offer to tell me about an experience he had that just blew me away,” Haines said in a 2009 interview.3 Although he had heard of UFOs at the time, he had absolutely no interest in them. “I heard more and more stories from these very credible witnesses, so it began to catch my attention. I said to myself, ‘I can explain these things; they’re all natural phenomena or misidentified phenomena within the human eye,’ which I knew a lot about from studying human vision and optics. So I set out as a skeptic to disprove the whole thing. But the more I looked into the subject seriously, the more convinced I became that there was something there. Something that deserved to be looked at. Yet none of my colleagues were doing so.” He then started systematically collecting data and eyewitness reports, and giving a great deal of thought to the analysis, and has been doing so ever since. Today, he has developed an international database of over 3,400 firsthand UFO sightings by commercial, military, and private pilots, with special attention to cases where aviation safety is compromised, as distinct from sightings during which the objects have no effect on an aircraft or its crew.
In fact, for years, he and his associates have been attempting to alert the aviation community to the effects of unknown aerial phenomena on aircraft safety. In 2001, along with executive director Ted Roe, he established the National Aviation Reporting Center on Anomalous Phenomena4 (NARCAP), a
respected international nonprofit research organization serving also as a confidential reporting center for use by pilots, crew, and air traffic controllers who are otherwise afraid to make reports of sightings. NARCAP scientists collect and analyze high-quality data to further understand the fundamental nature of all kinds of unidentified aerial phenomena that may pose a threat to aviation safety. The group’s technical and science advisors with extensive aviation and aeronautic experience from about a dozen countries, along with other specialists ranging from geophysicists and research psychologists to meteorologists and astrophysicists, contribute research and publish “Technical Reports” on the group’s website.
I have been privileged to come to know Dr. Haines, and he invited me to sit in on a number of private NARCAP annual meetings over the years, the last one being in July 2008. I was honored to meet many of these dedicated professionals, who are doing an outstanding job despite the obstacles they face. Papers and ongoing research are presented at these round-table gatherings, and strategies are discussed for acquiring greater accessibility to the aviation community, making sure that NARCAP remains distinct from activist UFO groups where aviation safety is obviously not the focus and where a rigorous scientific approach is less often employed.
Nonetheless, the group’s efforts to bring this issue into the scientific arena and aviation community have fallen on deaf ears. “There is little doubt in my mind that no amount of rational discussion about the substantiated evidence of the presence and behavior of UAP in our skies is going to quickly overcome the impact on two generations of Americans repeatedly told otherwise: that the subject of UAP should, at best, be cast into the category of folklore and, at worst, viewed as somehow harmful propaganda,” Dr. Haines commented recently in an e-mail. “But we must keep working toward the goal of accepting the truth when and where we find it. To do anything less is to set ourselves up for a possibly dangerous future.”