THE POLICE
It began on the ground
On 29 November 1989 gendarmes Heinrich Nicoll and Hubert von Montigny reported extraordinary lights near Eupen. Their accounts became the opening anchor for a wider wave of triangular-object reports.
WHY THIS CASE ENDURES
The Belgian Wave survives a devastating blow that would destroy many UFO stories: its most famous photograph was a hoax. Remove it completely, and the case still contains police witnesses, months of reports, military radar, an F-16 scramble and an unusually open Air Force response.
THE FIGHTERS
Belgium scrambled
During the night of 30–31 March 1990, after ground radar and visual reports, two Belgian F-16s were launched. They obtained intermittent radar contacts but the pilots themselves never visually acquired an object.
THE PHOTOGRAPH
Famous — and false
The Petit-Rechain triangle photograph became the icon of the wave. In 2011 its maker said it was a model hoax. That image must be removed from the evidential column, not allowed to erase evidence that predates it.
01 / 29 NOVEMBER 1989
Two gendarmes stopped because something in the sky did not make sense.
Near Eupen in eastern Belgium, gendarmes Heinrich Nicoll and Hubert von Montigny were on patrol when they noticed an intense light. What followed became the opening chapter of the Belgian Wave. Their descriptions were not of a distant point of light glimpsed for seconds, but of a large, structured arrangement of lights moving through the area.
Early accounts describe a dark or difficult-to-see body carrying powerful lights, often recalled as a triangular form. The object appeared slow, low and remarkably quiet for something the witnesses judged to be large. At points the officers stopped and watched. Other reports accumulated that evening around Eupen, Verviers and neighbouring communities.
Before radar screens and fighter aircraft entered the story, the Belgian Wave was already a police-witness case.
That chronology matters. Later excitement, newspaper coverage and photographs cannot explain why identifiable police officers were reporting strange aerial phenomena at the beginning of the wave. It does not prove their interpretation was correct — but it gives the case a contemporaneous spine.
02 / BELGIAN UFO WAVE 1989–1990
From the Eupen police sighting to a nationwide wave.
Reports continued through the winter of 1989–1990. Civilians and police described lights and large triangular or delta-like forms across Wallonia. The case is frequently presented as if every report described the same machine. That is too neat. A wave is an event cluster: some observations may share a cause, others may not.
That heterogeneity is not a weakness if handled properly. The strongest reports should stand on their own facts, while stars, planets, aircraft, helicopters and expectation effects are allowed to explain weaker sightings. What made Belgium unusual was that official interest did not disappear as the number of reports grew.
1989Wave begins near Eupen
1990Reports continue through winter
2F-16s launched on 31 March
13Radar contacts logged in later technical analysis
29 NOV 1989Eupen-area police sightings become the best-known opening event.
WINTER 1989–90Reports of large lights and triangular forms continue across Wallonia.
30–31 MAR 1990Ground observations and radar contacts trigger an F-16 scramble.
11 JUL 1990Belgian Air Force publicly discusses the interception and radar material.
2011The maker of the Petit-Rechain photograph says the famous image was a model hoax.
03 / THE AIR FORCE
Belgium did something UFO cases rarely get: it opened the military door.
By March 1990, the Belgian Air Force was monitoring reports and coordinating with the gendarmerie. On the night of 30–31 March, unusual lights were reported from the ground and unidentified radar returns were detected. The situation developed far enough for two F-16s from Beauvechain to be ordered airborne.
The fighters took off shortly after midnight. During the mission, their onboard radars produced a series of intermittent contacts. Some recorded changes in apparent speed and altitude looked sensational when first presented. The Air Force did not announce that it had intercepted an alien craft. It did something more useful: it released information, discussed what its systems had recorded and acknowledged that the event had not been satisfactorily identified at the time.
BELGIAN AIR FORCE · NIGHT OF 30–31 MARCH 1990
VISUAL + RADAR REPORTS → F-16 SCRAMBLE → INTERMITTENT AIRBORNE RADAR CONTACTS
Two F-16s launched from Beauvechain. Later technical documentation describes 13 radar contacts collected between approximately 00:13 and 00:50. The pilots did not obtain a visual sighting of a corresponding object.
04 / WHAT THE RADAR DOES — AND DOES NOT — GIVE US
The radar night is compelling. It is not a licence to print impossible performance.
The popular version of the interception often focuses on dramatic radar-derived accelerations: targets apparently changing speed or altitude at rates no conventional aircraft could survive. Those figures helped make the Belgian Wave famous.
Later technical work complicated that interpretation. Radar tracking logic, including the F-16 system’s filtering and the possibility of target swaps or discontinuous tracks, can create apparent movements that should not automatically be read as the physical trajectory of one craft. Radar propagation and atmospheric conditions also have to be considered.
The important residue
The caution does not make the sortie meaningless. Ground controllers had enough concern to launch fighters. The aircraft did record returns. The Air Force treated the incident seriously and publicly. The right conclusion is narrower than the folklore: the radar material documents a real interception attempt around unidentified contacts, but the most extraordinary performance claims cannot simply be lifted from the display and treated as proven kinematics.
DO NOT CONFLATE
Radar anomaly is not automatically one solid triangle performing every plotted manoeuvre.
The pilots never saw the target. That fact belongs beside the radar evidence, not hidden beneath it.
05 / THREE EVIDENCE LAYERS
Take the case apart. It gets more interesting.
LAYER 01
Police testimony
Named gendarmes reported unusual structured lights early in the wave, before its most famous imagery existed.
LAYER 02
Mass reports
A prolonged regional cluster produced many civilian reports. Quality varies, so individual cases should not be averaged into one super-witness.
LAYER 03
Military response
Ground radar and visual reporting led to a genuine F-16 scramble and recorded airborne radar contacts.
LAYER 04
Compromised media
The iconic Petit-Rechain photograph is a confessed model hoax and must be excluded as evidence.
The photograph failed. The wave did not disappear with it.
06 / PETIT-RECHAIN UFO PHOTO
The most famous photograph of the Belgian UFO Wave was a hoax.
The Petit-Rechain photograph shows three bright points at the corners of a dark triangular form with a central light. For years it became the visual shorthand for the entire Belgian Wave. It appeared in documentaries, books and newspapers and seemed to give the public what witness testimony could not: the triangle itself.
That confession matters. A flagship case file should say it without euphemism: **the photograph is compromised and should not be used to prove the wave.** But the correct evidential response is subtraction, not collapse. The November police observations happened before the image. The military interception does not depend on it. The Air Force did not launch F-16s because of this photograph.
THE UAP MAP RULE
Bad evidence is removed. It is not allowed to contaminate unrelated evidence.
Belgium is a useful test of intellectual discipline on both sides. Believers should not defend a confessed hoax because it looks spectacular. Sceptics should not pretend that exposing one photograph retrospectively identifies every police report and radar event in a months-long wave.
07 / THE ALTERNATIVES
Could Belgium have built a UFO wave from ordinary things?
AIRCRAFT / HELICOPTERS
Triangles made of lights
Aircraft viewed at night can appear as structured arrangements of lights, and helicopters can move slowly or hover. These explanations plausibly fit some reports. The harder task is matching particular low-level, quiet, close police observations case by case.
STARS / PLANETS / EXPECTATION
A wave feeds itself
Once Belgium was looking upward, ordinary celestial lights and ambiguous aircraft were more likely to be reported. This can inflate a wave without requiring every witness to be wrong about the strongest events.
RADAR PROPAGATION
The March night
Atmospheric propagation, clutter, tracking logic and target-switching can explain some apparently extraordinary radar behaviour. They weaken claims of impossible acceleration more than they explain the entire preceding wave.
08 / WHY BELGIUM IS DIFFERENT
The military did not laugh. It investigated in public.
Many classic UFO cases acquire official involvement only through leaked documents or later testimony. Belgium was different. Senior Air Force officer Wilfried De Brouwer became publicly associated with the investigation. Radar information was discussed. The fighter response was acknowledged. Civilian researchers were not simply told that nothing had happened.
That openness is one reason the Belgian Wave remains valuable even where individual claims weaken. It provides a case study in what happens when a modern air force treats a UFO wave as an airspace question instead of merely a public-relations problem.
It also creates a more demanding standard. Because the military record is visible, enthusiasts have to accept its limitations: no F-16 pilot visually saw a craft, raw radar interpretation is complex, and the headline photograph is unusable. What remains after those concessions is still substantial — a series of named police reports, a regional wave, radar anomalies and an acknowledged interception attempt.
09 / THE RESTORED DEEP DIVE
The complete Belgian record.
Over the course of five months beginning November 29, 1989, more than 2,600 written reports of silent, low-flying black triangular objects were collected across Belgium. On the night of March 30–31, 1990, the Belgian Air Force scrambled two F-16 fighters to intercept radar-visual targets — obtaining brief radar locks that remain debated to this day. The Belgian military showed unprecedented transparency, openly cooperating with civilian investigators. The famous Petit-Rechain photo was confessed as a hoax in 2011. The case remains a landmark in UAP history — celebrated by believers as the best-documented mass sighting in Europe, and by skeptics as a textbook psychosocial phenomenon.
NEW PRIMARY RECORD · RELEASED 18 JUNE 2025
The radar story changed when Belgium released the Salmon report.
For decades, popular summaries treated the March 1990 F-16 traces as evidence of extreme acceleration. The partially redacted 173-page technical report directed by Lt. Col. Salmon now allows that claim to be checked against the engineering reconstruction itself — contact by contact and frame by frame.
173 pagesBelgian Defence technical report
13 contactsF-16 radar interceptions analysed
8 · 9 · 10identified as the wingman F-16
30 fpscockpit radar video sampled in reconstruction
How the reconstruction worked: the cockpit radar video was sampled at approximately 30 frames per second. Analysts used the F-16's recorded roll angle and antenna geometry to help reconstruct target direction and relative motion. That matters because the spectacular “instant jumps” seen in simplified charts can partly arise from how the radar tracks, predicts and switches targets rather than from one object physically moving through every plotted point.
Contact-by-contact result: the report analyses 13 radar contacts. Contacts 8, 9 and 10 are identified as the wingman F-16. Other contacts are affected by short duration, tracking uncertainty, Kalman-filter extrapolation or target switching. The report therefore weakens claims that the raw plots prove impossible acceleration while stopping short of proving that every radar return had one single mundane cause.
What the report changes: the engineers found that the F-16 radar's Kalman filter could create apparent trajectory discontinuities, fictitious tracks and target switching. That sharply weakens the familiar claim that every dramatic speed or altitude jump represented one physical craft performing impossible manoeuvres.
The F-16 radar case and the wider Belgian UFO Wave are not the same evidential question. The Salmon report is about the airborne radar record from the night of 30–31 March 1990. It does not retroactively identify what the Eupen gendarmes reported on 29 November 1989, nor does it explain every later police or civilian observation. The correct update is narrower: the most dramatic radar-performance claims are substantially weakened, while the wider witness record still has to be assessed sighting by sighting.
📸 Photo Gallery
Case imagery and context — the famous (and later confessed-hoax) Petit-Rechain photo, authentic Belgian Air Force F-16 imagery, period/context aircraft, radar displays, locator maps of Glons CRC and Semmerzake, Beauvechain Air Base, and Eupen where the wave began. Historical exhibits are labelled so they are not confused with incident photography.
🔍 Click to enlarge
Petit-Rechain UFO Photograph (TriangleBelgium1990)
The most famous image of the Belgian UFO wave — a black triangular object with three lights at its corners. Released anonymously in April 1990 and widely published in newspapers worldwide. Examined by NASA, the French CNRS, and the Belgian Royal Military Academy, none of which could definitively prove it was fake. In 2011, photographer Patrick Maréchal confessed it was a hoax made from a polystyrene triangle painted black with three flashlight bulbs, hung from a string.
📷 Wikimedia Commons · Public domain · See Commons page
🔍 Click to enlarge
CGI Reconstruction of Witness Testimonies (Vaguebelge)
A CGI reconstruction/illustration based on collected witness testimonies of the Belgian UFO wave, showing the triangular craft with lights underneath.
📷 Wikimedia Commons · Public domain · See Commons page
🔍 Click to enlarge
F-16 Fighting Falcon (General Dynamics) — Belgian Air Force Interceptor Type
The F-16 Fighting Falcon was the fighter jet used by the Belgian Air Force during the March 30, 1990 intercept attempts. Two F-16s were scrambled from Beauvechain Air Base.
📷 Wikimedia Commons · Public domain · See Commons page
🔍 Click to enlarge
Belgian Air Force F-16 in Flight
A Belgian Air Force F-16 fighter jet in flight, representative of the interceptors scrambled during the March 30, 1990 UFO chase.
📷 Wikimedia Commons · CC BY 2.0 · See Commons page
🔍 Click to enlarge
Belgian Air Force F-16 (Alternate Angle)
Another image of a Belgian Air Force F-16, the type used in the 1990 intercept.
📷 Wikimedia Commons · CC BY 2.0 · See Commons page
🔍 Click to enlarge
Lockheed F-117 Nighthawk (Stealth Fighter)
The F-117 Nighthawk stealth aircraft was initially suspected as a possible explanation for the Belgian sightings. General Wilfried De Brouwer contacted US authorities, who confirmed no USAF stealth aircraft were operating in the area during the sightings.
📷 Wikimedia Commons · CC BY-SA 3.0 · See Commons page
🔍 Click to enlarge
Belgium in Europe (Locator Map)
Map showing the location of Belgium within Europe.
📷 Wikimedia Commons · CC BY-SA 3.0 · See Commons page
🔍 Click to enlarge
Map of Belgium
Detailed map of Belgium showing the locations of key sightings including Eupen, Wavre, Glons, Semmerzake, and Beauvechain Air Base.
📷 Wikimedia Commons · CC BY-SA 3.0 · See Commons page
🔍 Click to enlarge
Semmerzake, Belgium — Radar Traffic Center Location
Semmerzake housed a Traffic Center Control that tracked one of the objects on radar during the March 30, 1990 events, leading to the scramble order for the F-16s.
📷 Wikimedia Commons · CC BY-SA 4.0 · See Commons page
🔍 Click to enlarge
Beauvechain, Belgium — Air Base Location
Beauvechain Air Base was the origin of the two F-16 fighters scrambled to intercept the unknown objects on the night of March 30–31, 1990.
📷 Wikimedia Commons · CC BY-SA 4.0 · See Commons page
🔍 Click to enlarge
Atomium, Brussels — Belgian Landmark
The Atomium, Brussels' most iconic landmark. The Belgian UFO wave included sightings reported across the Brussels region.
📷 Wikimedia Commons · CC BY-SA 3.0 · See Commons page
🔍 Click to enlarge
L-scope Radar Display
A historical radar scope display of the type conceptually similar to those used by Belgian military radar operators. During the March 1990 intercept, radar operators tracked sporadic contacts that were later attributed to Bragg scattering (atmospheric interference).
📷 Wikimedia Commons · Public domain · See Commons page
🔍 Click to enlarge
Plan Position Indicator (PPI) Radar Display
A Plan Position Indicator radar scope, representative of the type of radar display used at the Glons Control Reporting Center (CRC) and Semmerzake Traffic Center during the 1990 events.
📷 Wikimedia Commons · Public domain · See Commons page
🔍 Click to enlarge
Eupen, Belgium — Where the Wave Began
A view of the Hautes Fagnes area near Eupen, Belgium. The Belgian UFO wave began on November 29, 1989, when two gendarmes in Eupen reported seeing a large, silent triangular object at low altitude.
📷 Wikimedia Commons · CC BY 4.0 · See Commons page
🔍 Click to enlarge
F-16 Fighting Falcon (Large Format)
A high-resolution image of an F-16 Fighting Falcon in flight, the type of aircraft used by the Belgian Air Force during the 1990 UFO intercept.
📷 Wikimedia Commons · Public domain · See Commons page
🔍 Click to enlarge
Belgian Air Force F-16 (Ground View)
A Belgian Air Force F-16 photographed on the ground, representing the type scrambled from Beauvechain Air Base.
📷 Wikimedia Commons · CC BY 2.0 · See Commons page
📖 The Full Story
A months-long wave of mass sightings that began with two gendarmes on patrol in Eupen and peaked with F-16 intercepts over Belgium — the most extensively documented UFO wave in European history.
On November 29, 1989, two gendarmes on routine patrol in Eupen, Belgium — Heinrich Nicoll and Hubert von Montigny — reported seeing a large, silent, triangular object with three bright lights hovering just above the treetops. They described the lights as being as bright as floodlights on a football pitch. Nicoll called their dispatcher. This single report triggered what would become one of the most extensively documented UFO waves in history.
Over the following days, the story spread. The civilian UFO group SOBEPS (Société Belge d'Étude des Phénomènes Spatiaux) became the media's primary source. Reporter Heinz Godessart broke the story in the Grenz Echo. Physics professor Auguste Meessen interviewed the gendarmes and began building the case. Within a week, 143 people claimed to have witnessed objects on the first night — though all reports were filed after media solicitation. Over the next five months, hundreds more sightings were reported across Belgium, mostly of large, dark, triangular objects with lights underneath, flying at low altitude.
The wave peaked on the night of March 30–31, 1990. The supervisor at the Control Reporting Center (CRC) at Glons received reports of three unusual lights. The Traffic Center Control at Semmerzake tracked an object on radar. An order was given to scramble two F-16 fighters from Beauvechain Air Base. Over the next hour, the F-16s made repeated interception attempts and recorded a series of short radar contacts. The pilots never visually saw an unidentified object. The 2025-released Salmon report analyses 13 contacts and identifies contacts 8, 9 and 10 as the other F-16, while showing how filtering and target switching can distort several of the more dramatic reconstructed tracks. Other radar contacts were attributed to Bragg scattering, a well-known atmospheric phenomenon that produces "angel echoes" — false radar returns caused by inhomogeneities in air density.
In April 1990, the famous "Petit-Rechain photo" was released anonymously — a black triangular object with three lights at its corners. It was published in newspapers worldwide and examined by NASA, the French CNRS, and the Belgian Royal Military Academy. None could definitively prove it was fake. For over twenty years, it stood as the most iconic piece of physical evidence from the wave. On July 26, 2011, photographer Patrick Maréchal confessed on Belgian TV that it was a hoax: a polystyrene triangle painted black with three flashlight bulbs, hung from a string. He demonstrated the construction and showed his outtakes.
General Wilfried De Brouwer, Chief of Operations of the Belgian Air Staff, was tasked with handling the wave from the military side. He initially suspected experimental American stealth aircraft and formally inquired with US authorities, who confirmed no USAF stealth aircraft were operating in the area. The Belgian military showed an unprecedented level of transparency — releasing a detailed report on the March 30–31 intercept, acknowledging the radar data, and openly cooperating with SOBEPS. De Brouwer later wrote a detailed account for Leslie Kean's 2010 book, bringing the case to a wide English-language audience.
The case remains deeply polarized. SOBEPS collected over 2,600 written reports and published two thick volumes arguing the objects were genuine and likely extraterrestrial. Skeptics, led by Marc Hallet, Jean-Michel Abrassart, and Brian Dunning, argue the wave was a textbook psychosocial phenomenon — a mass delusion driven by media coverage and SOBEPS solicitation, with the original sighting likely a helicopter and the radar contacts explained by atmospheric interference. The debate continues to this day, making the Belgian UFO Wave a defining case study in the history of UAP research.
Sources: Belgian Air Force Report (Major Lambrechts, 1990); Lt. Col. Salmon Radar Report (Belgian Defence; released with redactions in 2025); SOBEPS, "Vague d'OVNI sur la Belgique" (Vols. 1 & 2, 1991/1994); Leslie Kean, "UFOs: Generals, Pilots, and Government Officials Go on the Record" (2010); Brian Dunning, Skeptoid #538 (2016); Wikipedia: Belgian UFO wave; UK National Archives UFO files (DEFE 31/184).
⏱️ Timeline
From the first sighting in Eupen through the F-16 intercept, the Petit-Rechain photo hoax confession, and the ongoing debate — the complete chronology of the Belgian UFO Wave and its aftermath.
November 29, 1989VIEW ENTRY
The wave begins. Two gendarmes (Heinrich Nicoll and Hubert von Montigny) on routine patrol in Eupen report a large, silent, triangular object at low altitude with three bright lights. Over the following days, SOBEPS and media solicit additional reports. Eventually 143 people claim to have witnessed objects on this night, though all reports were filed after the fact, following media solicitation.
Late November–December 1989VIEW ENTRY
Reports spread. SOBEPS becomes the media's primary source on UFOs. The story is first broken by Grenz Echo reporter Heinz Godessart. SOBEPS investigator Auguste Meessen interviews the gendarmes and begins building the case. Additional sightings are reported across Belgium.
December 1989 – March 1990VIEW ENTRY
The wave continues. Hundreds of additional sightings are reported across Belgium, mostly of large, dark, triangular objects with lights underneath, flying at low altitude. Many reports are filed weeks or months after the events, prompted by media coverage and SOBEPS solicitation.
March 30, 1990 (~23:00)VIEW ENTRY
The peak night begins. The supervisor at the Control Reporting Center (CRC) at Glons receives reports of three unusual lights moving toward Thorembais-Gembloux, southeast of Brussels. Glons CRC requests the Wavre gendarmerie send a patrol to confirm the sighting.
March 30, 1990 (~23:10)VIEW ENTRY
A second set of lights is reported moving toward the first triangle. Traffic Center Control at Semmerzake tracks an object on radar. An order is given to scramble two F-16 fighters from Beauvechain Air Base.
March 30–31, 1990 (23:00–01:00)VIEW ENTRY
F-16 intercept attempts. Over the next hour, two scrambled F-16s attempt nine separate interceptions. On three occasions, they obtain brief radar locks — later shown to be locks on each other (the other F-16). The pilots never visually see any objects. Other radar contacts are attributed to Bragg scattering (atmospheric interference / 'angel echoes'). Final confirmed radar lock at 00:40. F-16s return to base shortly after 01:00.
March 31, 1990 (~01:30)VIEW ENTRY
The Wavre gendarmerie patrol reports four lights in a square formation making jerky movements, which gradually dim and disappear in four separate directions. They also report a low engine noise and something resembling a stick with a turbine — suggesting a helicopter.
April 1990VIEW ENTRY
The Petit-Rechain photo is taken and released anonymously. The image of a black triangle with three lights becomes the most famous UFO photo of the wave, published in newspapers worldwide. It is examined by NASA, CNRS, and the Royal Military Academy, none of which can prove it is fake.
1990–1991VIEW ENTRY
The wave gradually subsides. SOBEPS continues collecting reports, eventually totaling over 2,600 written sightings. The Belgian military releases a report on the March 30–31 intercept. General De Brouwer contacts US authorities, who confirm no stealth aircraft were operating in the area.
1991VIEW ENTRY
SOBEPS publishes 'Vague d'OVNI sur la Belgique' (Volume 1), documenting over 1,000 sightings and concluding the objects were genuine and likely extraterrestrial. Auguste Meessen is lead author.
1992VIEW ENTRY
Marc Hallet publishes 'La Vague OVNI Belge ou le triomphe de la désinformation,' the first major skeptical critique, arguing the wave was a mass delusion boosted by SOBEPS misinformation.
1993VIEW ENTRY
Pierre Magain and Marc Remy publish an article in Physicalia Magazine with conclusions that contradict SOBEPS, suggesting the wave should be studied by social scientists, not physicists.
1994VIEW ENTRY
SOBEPS publishes Volume 2 of 'Vague d'OVNI sur la Belgique,' incorporating findings from the classified Gilmard-Salmon report (obtained through professional channels). Meessen revises his radar analysis to acknowledge 'angel echoes.'
2008VIEW ENTRY
Renaud Leclet publishes 'The Belgian UFO Wave of 1989–1992: A Neglected Hypothesis,' arguing that many sightings were helicopters and that 'silence' claims could be explained by automobile noise and wind.
2010VIEW ENTRY
Leslie Kean publishes 'UFOs: Generals, Pilots, and Government Officials Go on the Record,' opening with General Wilfried De Brouwer's detailed account of the Belgian wave, bringing the case to a wide English-language audience.
July 26, 2011VIEW ENTRY
Patrick Maréchal confesses on Belgian TV (RTL-TVI) that the Petit-Rechain photo was a hoax — a polystyrene triangle painted black with three flashlight bulbs, hung from a string. He demonstrates the construction and shows outtakes. Belgian UFO researchers who promoted the photo accept the confession.
September 27, 2016VIEW ENTRY
Brian Dunning publishes the Skeptoid podcast episode 'The Belgian UFO Wave,' providing a comprehensive skeptical analysis that challenges the pro-UFO narrative, including that all three F-16 radar locks were on each other and that other contacts were Bragg scattering.
2016VIEW ENTRY
Jean-Michel Abrassart completes his PhD thesis at Université Catholique de Louvain on the psychosocial model of UFO phenomena, using the Belgian wave as a primary case study.
June 18, 2025VIEW ENTRY
Belgian Defence releases a partially redacted 173-page technical report directed by Lt. Col. Salmon on the March 30–31, 1990 F-16 radar echoes. The report analyses 13 contacts, identifies contacts 8, 9 and 10 as the second F-16, and explains how Kalman-filter extrapolation, fictitious tracks and target switching can create apparently extraordinary motion.
👁️ Key Witnesses
Eleven key figures in the case — from the two gendarmes who triggered the wave, to the F-16 pilots and radar operators, the SOBEPS investigators, the military general who oversaw the intercept, the photographer who confessed the hoax, and the skeptics who challenged the narrative.
Heinrich Nicoll
Gendarme (police officer), Eupen
Credibility: 🟢 Reliable (trained military/civilian professional, on-site observer)
On November 29, 1989, Nicoll and his partner Hubert von Montigny were on routine patrol in Eupen when they spotted a large, triangular craft with bright lights silently floating just above the treetops. They described the lights as being as bright as floodlights on a football pitch. This was the sighting that triggered the entire Belgian UFO wave. Nicoll called their dispatcher to report the object.
Hubert von Montigny
Gendarme (police officer), Eupen
Credibility: 🟢 Reliable (trained military/civilian professional, on-site observer)
Partner of Heinrich Nicoll. Together they reported the first sighting of the Belgian UFO wave on November 29, 1989 — a massive triangular object hovering silently at low altitude over Eupen. Their report was the catalyst that brought SOBEPS and media attention to the wave.
Auguste Meessen
Professor of Physics, SOBEPS investigator and lead author
Credibility: 🟢 Reliable (trained military/civilian professional, on-site observer)
Meessen was a physics professor at Belgium's largest French-speaking university and one of the primary investigators for SOBEPS. He interviewed the original gendarme witnesses, became the media's main source on UFOs, and was lead author of 'Vague d'OVNI sur la Belgique.' He argued the objects were 'of extraterrestrial origin' — 'the only reasonable hypothesis.' He later obtained a copy of the classified Gilmard-Salmon report and revised his radar analysis.
Major General Wilfried De Brouwer
Chief of Operations, Belgian Air Staff
Credibility: 🟢 Reliable (trained military/civilian professional, on-site observer)
De Brouwer was tasked with handling the UFO wave from the military side. He oversaw the F-16 intercept operations on March 30, 1990, and initially suspected experimental American stealth aircraft. He contacted US authorities, who confirmed no USAF stealth aircraft were operating in the area. He later stated: 'The technical evidence was insufficient to conclude that abnormal air activities took place during that evening.' He wrote a detailed account for Leslie Kean's 2010 book.
Major Lambrechts
Belgian Air Force officer, base duty officer
Credibility: 🟢 Reliable (trained military/civilian professional, on-site observer)
Lambrechts wrote the chronological journal of the March 30–31, 1990 events — the primary military report of the night's F-16 intercept attempts, radar contacts, and communications. His report is the key official document of the intercept.
Patrick Maréchal
Photographer (hoaxer of the Petit-Rechain photo)
Credibility: 🟢 Reliable (trained military/civilian professional, on-site observer)
Maréchal took the famous 'Petit-Rechain photo' in April 1990 — a black triangular object with three lights. He released it anonymously and it was widely published worldwide and examined by NASA, CNRS, and the Royal Military Academy. On July 26, 2011, he confessed on Belgian TV (RTL-TVI) that it was a hoax: a polystyrene triangle painted black with three flashlight bulbs, hung from a string. He demonstrated how he created it and showed his outtakes.
Wavre Gendarmerie Patrol
Gendarmes dispatched from Wavre to confirm sighting
Credibility: 🟢 Reliable (trained military/civilian professional, on-site observer)
Dispatched by Glons CRC to confirm the initial March 30, 1990 sighting. They reported four lights in a square formation making short jerky movements, which gradually dimmed and disappeared in four separate directions around 01:30. They also reported hearing a low engine noise and seeing something resembling a stick with a turbine on it — leading many to conclude the object was a helicopter.
Jean-Michel Abrassart
Belgian psychologist, skeptical researcher
Credibility: 🟢 Reliable (trained military/civilian professional, on-site observer)
Abrassart wrote his PhD thesis on the psychosocial model of UFO phenomena, using the Belgian UFO wave as a primary case study. He argued that the wave does not contradict the psychosocial hypothesis and that the initial 143 reports were collected only after a week of aggressive media solicitation by SOBEPS.
Heinz Godessart
Journalist, Grenz Echo (German-language Belgian tabloid)
Credibility: 🟢 Reliable (trained military/civilian professional, on-site observer)
Godessart was the reporter who first interviewed the two Eupen gendarmes about their November 29, 1989 sighting, breaking the story in the Grenz Echo. He was described as a lifelong believer in alien visitation, which skeptics note may have influenced the initial framing of the story.
Renaud Leclet
Skeptical UFO investigator
Credibility: 🟢 Reliable (trained military/civilian professional, on-site observer)
Leclet wrote a detailed article ('The Belgian UFO Wave of 1989–1992: A Neglected Hypothesis') concluding that the original November 29 sighting was almost certainly a Bell UH-1 Huey helicopter in the area. He noted that witnesses' claims of 'silence' could be explained by automobile engine noise or wind, and that the gendarmes actually reported a 'low noise,' not silence.
Lucien Clerebaut
SOBEPS president/founder
Credibility: 🟢 Reliable (trained military/civilian professional, on-site observer)
Clerebaut was a key figure in SOBEPS, the civilian UFO investigation organization that collected and documented over 2,600 reports during the wave. SOBEPS coordinated with the Belgian military — an unprecedented level of military-civilian cooperation in UFO investigation.
📂 Belgian UFO Wave Primary Documents
Start with the records that can now be checked directly: the 2025-released Salmon F-16 radar report, Belgian Air Force radar charts, the contemporary Belgian Air Force chronology, UK government files, and the wider police/military paper trail. Secondary summaries are kept subordinate to those primary records.
Belgian Air Force Report — March 30–31, 1990 UFO Observations
The official Belgian Air Force (Air Component) report detailing the events of the night of March 30–31, 1990, including the scramble of two F-16s, radar contacts, and intercept attempts. Written by Major Lambrechts as a chronological journal of the night's events. The report documented nine intercept attempts, three brief radar locks (later shown to be locks on the other F-16), and sporadic radar contacts attributed to Bragg scattering.
Contains: Chronological log of the night's events, radar data, F-16 intercept attempts, gendarmerie reports
View source →Lt. Col. Salmon F-16 Radar Report — 173 Pages, Released 2025
The engineering analysis of the 30–31 March 1990 F-16 radar episode. It reconstructs 13 contacts, identifies contacts 8, 9 and 10 as the wingman F-16, and examines Kalman-filter extrapolation, fictitious tracks, target switching and atmospheric/radar effects. It is the essential document for evaluating claims of extraordinary speed or acceleration from the cockpit radar plots.
Contains: 13-contact reconstruction, F-16 geometry, 30 fps radar-video analysis, Kalman filter behaviour, target switching, radar interpretation
Open released report →Belgian Air Force F-16 Radar Charts — 31 March 1990
The plotted radar material associated with the intercept night. These charts are historically important, but should be read alongside the Salmon engineering report rather than treated as self-explanatory proof of one object performing every apparent manoeuvre.
Contains: radar-contact plots, trajectory graphics, interception context
Open radar charts →UK National Archives — UFO Reports (DEFE 31/184)
Declassified UK Ministry of Defence UFO files that reference the Belgian UFO wave. Each UK MP was given a document mentioning the Belgian sightings. The file documents how the UK tracked the Belgian events and the radar-visual reports from March 1990.
Contains: UK government assessment of the Belgian UFO wave, references to Belgian Air Force F-16 scramble, radar data
View source →UK National Archives — UFO Reports Postwar Collection
The UK National Archives' collection of postwar UFO reports, which includes the 1990 Belgian UFO wave as a major event. Documents how large unknown triangular-shaped objects were reported over Belgium on 30–31 March 1990, following months of strange sightings.
Contains: Overview of Belgian sightings, F-16 scramble documentation, gendarmerie reports
View source →Belgian Air Force Radar Reports (Glons CRC and Semmerzake)
Radar data from the Control Reporting Center (CRC) at Glons and the Traffic Center Control at Semmerzake, which tracked objects on the night of March 30, 1990. The Glons CRC received the initial reports of unusual lights and coordinated with the Wavre gendarmerie. Semmerzake tracked an object on radar, prompting the scramble order for the F-16s.
Contains: Rar contacts, track data, scramble orders, gendarmerie coordination
View source →General Wilfried De Brouwer's Report on the Belgian UFO Wave
General Wilfried De Brouwer, Chief of Operations of the Belgian Air Staff at the time, was tasked with handling the UFO wave. He produced analyses of the sightings and initially interpreted them as possibly caused by experimental American stealth craft. US authorities confirmed no USAF stealth aircraft were operating in the area. De Brouwer later contributed to Leslie Kean's book with a detailed account.
Contains: Military assessment, F-16 intercept analysis, US stealth aircraft inquiry, official conclusions
View source →Petit-Rechain Photo Analysis Reports (NASA, CNRS, Royal Military Academy)
The Petit-Rechain photograph was examined by NASA, the French National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS), and the Belgian Royal Military Academy. None could positively identify the object or find obvious signs of fakery — though it was later confirmed as a hoax in 2011.
Contains: Photographic analysis, image authentication, inability to identify or disprove
View source →Wavre Gendarmerie Patrol Report
The Wavre gendarmerie was dispatched by the Glons CRC to confirm the initial sighting on March 30, 1990. They reported four lights arranged in a square formation making short jerky movements, which gradually lost luminosity and disappeared in four directions. They also reported a low engine noise and something resembling a stick with a turbine — leading many to conclude the object was a helicopter.
Contains: Visual observations, sound descriptions, movement patterns, object disappearance
View source →⚖️ Skeptical Analysis
The strongest conventional case is now more precise than “the F-16s locked onto each other.” The 2025 Salmon report shows a mixture of wingman identifications, short-lived radar contacts, filtering artefacts, target switching and uncertain returns. Those findings matter, but they apply to the March 1990 radar episode rather than automatically identifying every police and civilian sighting in the wider wave.
Mass delusion / psychosocial phenomenon
Proposed by: Marc Hallet (1992), Jean-Michel Abrassart, Brian Dunning (Skeptoid)
The Belgian UFO wave was a mass delusion driven by media coverage and SOBEPS solicitation. Following 'Klass's Law,' once news coverage leads the public to believe UFOs may be nearby, numerous natural and man-made objects take on unusual characteristics in the minds of hopeful viewers. Their reports add to mass excitement, encouraging more observers, creating a self-reinforcing cycle until media interest fades. The 143 initial reports were only collected after a week of aggressive media solicitation — not independently on the first night. All 2,600+ reports were filed after the fact.
Misidentified helicopters (Bell UH-1 Huey and others)
Proposed by: Renaud Leclet (2008)
Many sightings, including the original November 29, 1989 Eupen sighting, can be explained by helicopters. The gendarmes actually reported a 'low noise' (not silence), and one witness described 'a stick coming out one end with a turbine on it' — consistent with a helicopter. The perceived 'silence' could be due to witnesses' own automobile engine noise or wind direction. Leclet concluded the original sighting was almost certainly a Bell UH-1 Huey helicopter in the area, and that a stationary white light above Lake Gileppe was the planet Venus.
Radar contacts explained by Bragg scattering (atmospheric interference)
Proposed by: Belgian Royal Military Academy (Gilmard-Salmon report), Brian Dunning
The radar contacts during the March 30–31, 1990 F-16 intercept were the result of Bragg scattering — a well-known atmospheric phenomenon where random inhomogeneities in air density produce 'Clear-Air Echoes' (called 'angels') that cause false radar returns. The classified Gilmard-Salmon report found angel echoes to be the only interesting thing in the air that night. Of the nine reported radar locks by SOBEPS, the Belgian military only confirmed three — and analysis showed all three were locks on the other F-16, not on unknown objects.
F-16 radar locks were on each other
Proposed by: Belgian Air Force analysis, Brian Dunning
SOBEPS reported that F-16s obtained radar locks on unknown targets nine times. However, the Belgian military's own analysis confirmed only three locks, and all three were the F-16s locking onto each other. The pilots never visually saw any objects, reported no unusual maneuvers, and never obtained a lock on anything other than the other F-16.
The Petit-Rechain photo was a hoax
Proposed by: Patrick Maréchal (confession), Brian Dunning, Belgian UFO researchers (accepted)
On July 26, 2011, photographer Patrick Maréchal confessed that the famous Petit-Rechain photo was a hoax. He constructed it from a polystyrene (styrofoam) triangle painted black, with a flashlight bulb embedded in each corner, suspended from a string. He demonstrated the construction on Belgian TV and showed outtakes from his photo session. Despite being examined by NASA, CNRS, and the Royal Military Academy, none had been able to identify it as fake. The hoax was emblematic of the overall quality of evidence in the Belgian wave.
Skeptical scientific analysis contradicts SOBEPS
Proposed by: Pierre Magain and Marc Remy (1993, Physicalia Magazine)
Physicists Magain and Remy published an analysis in Physicalia Magazine whose conclusions did not match those of SOBEPS. They suggested the Belgian UFO wave would be better studied by people in the human sciences (psychologists, sociologists) than by physicists — implying a psychosocial rather than physical explanation.
Lack of photographic evidence despite thousands of witnesses
Proposed by: Brian Dunning
If 13,500 people actually saw something they took for a UFO at the time, one would expect far more than a single photograph to result. The fact that only one questionable photograph (later confirmed hoax) was produced during a year of mass sightings in a developed country is itself strong evidence against a physical phenomenon. Dunning called the single photo 'emblematic of the quality of all the evidence that characterized the Belgian UFO Wave.'
Reports solicited after the fact, not contemporaneous
Proposed by: Brian Dunning, Jean-Michel Abrassart
Contrary to later retellings, the 143 initial November 29 reports were not filed independently on that night — they were collected over the following week through aggressive media solicitation by SOBEPS. All 2,600+ reports were filed after the events, prompted by newspaper articles instructing people to send reports to SOBEPS. This pattern is consistent with retroactive reinterpretation of ordinary observations.
💔 Human Impact
The Belgian UFO Wave didn't just make headlines — it engaged a significant fraction of a small nation's population, established unprecedented military-civilian cooperation, created the "black triangle" archetype that shaped UFO reporting worldwide, and dealt a lasting blow to credibility when its most famous photo was revealed as a hoax.
Over 2,000+ witnesses across Belgium
Over the course of approximately five months (November 1989 to April 1990), more than 2,600 written reports were collected by SOBEPS. The number of total witnesses (including those who did not file written reports) has been estimated at over 13,500. For a small country like Belgium, this represented a significant fraction of the population becoming aware of and engaged with the phenomenon.
Unprecedented military transparency
The Belgian military showed an unprecedented level of openness. Rather than dismissing or hiding the sightings, the Belgian Air Force released a detailed report on the March 30–31 intercept, acknowledged the radar data, and openly cooperated with the civilian UFO group SOBEPS. General Wilfried De Brouwer, Chief of Operations, publicly stated the military could not identify the objects. This level of transparency was highly unusual for any military dealing with UFO reports and stood in stark contrast to the secrecy of other nations.
SOBEPS and the civilian investigation effort
The Société Belge d'Étude des Phénomènes Spatiaux (SOBEPS) became the central civilian investigation body, collecting over 2,600 reports and publishing two thick volumes ('Vague d'OVNI sur la Belgique'). The military-civilian cooperation was unprecedented: SOBEPS was given access to military radar data and even obtained a copy of the classified Gilmard-Salmon report through professional channels. This model of military-civilian UFO cooperation has rarely been replicated.
The photo hoax revelation and its impact on credibility
When Patrick Maréchal confessed in 2011 that the Petit-Rechain photo was a hoax, it dealt a significant blow to the credibility of the Belgian UFO wave narrative. The photo had been the case's most famous piece of physical evidence — examined by NASA, CNRS, and the Royal Military Academy. Its exposure as a polystyrene model confirmed skeptics' arguments and illustrated how even 'expert-analyzed' evidence can be faked. However, some researchers noted that one fake photo did not discredit the entire wave, given the thousands of witness reports.
Media saturation and national psyche
The Belgian media covered the UFO wave extensively over a period of years. In a small country with a shared media landscape, the story reached near-saturation, contributing to what skeptics called a self-reinforcing psychosocial cycle. The wave became a defining national event of the era, creating a sense of shared experience and wonder — as well as fear and confusion — across Belgian society.
The black triangle archetype
The Belgian wave established the 'black triangle' as the defining UFO archetype of the 1990s. The description of large, dark, triangular objects with lights at the corners became a template that was reported in subsequent sightings worldwide, including the 1993 Cosford Incident in the UK and the 2000 Illinois mass sighting. The Belgian case shaped public expectations of what a UFO sighting 'should' look like for a generation.
Impact on UFO research methodology
The Belgian wave became a case study in the debate between the extraterrestrial hypothesis and the psychosocial hypothesis. It influenced how UFO researchers and skeptics alike approach mass sighting waves, the role of media in shaping witness reports, and the importance of contemporaneous versus solicited testimony. Jean-Michel Abrassart's PhD thesis on the psychosocial model used the wave as its primary case study.
💡 Things You Didn't Know
Sixteen surprising facts about the Belgian UFO Wave — from the 2,600+ written reports and the 2025-released Salmon radar analysis, to the Petit-Rechain photo hoax, helicopter and astronomical alternatives, and the unusual openness of the Belgian military response.
- The Belgian UFO wave lasted from November 29, 1989, to April 1990 — approximately five months — during which over 2,600 written sighting reports were collected by SOBEPS.
- On the night of March 30–31, 1990, two Belgian Air Force F-16s were scrambled from Beauvechain Air Base and attempted nine separate intercepts. On three occasions they obtained brief radar locks — but analysis later showed all three locks were on each other (the other F-16), not on unknown objects.
- The objects were reportedly tracked on multiple radar systems simultaneously — ground radar at Glons CRC, Semmerzake Traffic Center, and the F-16s' onboard radar — though most contacts were later attributed to Bragg scattering (atmospheric interference producing 'angel echoes').
- The Belgian military cooperated openly with civilian UFO investigators (SOBEPS) — a level of transparency unprecedented in UFO history. SOBEPS was given access to military radar data and even obtained a copy of the classified Gilmard-Salmon report through professional channels.
- The famous Petit-Rechain photo — the most iconic image of the wave, examined by NASA, the French CNRS, and the Belgian Royal Military Academy — was confessed as a hoax in 2011 by photographer Patrick Maréchal. He built it from a polystyrene triangle painted black with three flashlight bulbs, hung from a string.
- Police officers (gendarmes) were among the first and most reliable witnesses. The entire wave was triggered by two on-duty gendarmes in Eupen — Heinrich Nicoll and Hubert von Montigny — who reported a large triangular object during a routine patrol on November 29, 1989.
- The black triangle shape became the defining UFO archetype of the 1990s, influencing subsequent reports worldwide including the 1993 UK Cosford Incident and the 2000 Illinois mass sighting.
- The Belgian Air Force officially admitted they could not identify the objects. General Wilfried De Brouwer, Chief of Operations, stated: 'The technical evidence was insufficient to conclude that abnormal air activities took place during that evening.' However, he also contacted US authorities to ask about stealth aircraft, and they confirmed no USAF stealth planes were operating in the area.
- The wave happened with no obvious trigger — no media event, no prior UFO publicity preceded the first sightings on November 29, 1989. This is sometimes cited by proponents as evidence against a purely psychosocial explanation, though skeptics argue the media response after the first sighting created the conditions for the wave.
- Some objects were reported to hover silently for extended periods and then accelerate instantly to high speed. F-16 radar allegedly showed objects accelerating from 150 mph to over 1,000 mph — though skeptics note these readings came from Bragg scattering artifacts, not physical objects.
- The total number of people who claimed to have seen something is often cited as 13,500, but this figure refers to the total number of witnesses across the entire wave, not on any single night. The 2,600 figure refers to written reports filed with SOBEPS.
- The 143 witnesses associated with the first night (November 29, 1989) did not all report independently on that night — their reports were collected over the following week through aggressive media solicitation by SOBEPS and newspapers instructing people to come forward.
- The original Eupen gendarmes did not actually report the object as 'silent' — they reported a 'low noise.' Other witnesses later described a sound like a motor, and one described 'a stick coming out one end with a turbine on it,' leading investigator Renaud Leclet to conclude it was likely a Bell UH-1 Huey helicopter.
- A stationary white light that the gendarmes observed above Lake Gileppe on the first night was later identified as the planet Venus, which would have been visible at exactly that position in the sky from their observation point.
- The classified Gilmard-Salmon report (by the Belgian Royal Military Academy's Electronic Warfare Center) was never publicly released, but SOBEPS obtained a copy and referenced it in their second book volume. This unusual access came through professional channels between academics.
- General De Brouwer initially suspected the sightings might be caused by American F-117 Nighthawk stealth fighters, which were classified at the time. He formally inquired with US authorities, who confirmed no USAF stealth aircraft were operating in Belgian airspace during the sightings.
📚 Books
Nine books covering the Belgian UFO Wave — from the SOBEPS two-volume primary source and Leslie Kean's landmark featuring General De Brouwer, to Dolan's national security chronology, Marler's triangular UFO study, Klass's skeptical framework, and Abrassart's PhD thesis on the psychosocial model. Links support The UAP Map via Amazon Associates.
Vague d'OVNI sur la Belgique: Une énigme non résolue (Tomes 1 & 2)
The primary source document for the Belgian UFO wave. Two thick volumes documenting over 1,000 UFO sightings collected by SOBEPS during the wave. Lead author Auguste Meessen, a physics professor, argued that 'the only reasonable hypothesis is that of unidentified flying objects... of extraterrestrial origin.' The second volume incorporated findings from the classified Gilmard-Salmon report. Remains the most comprehensive pro-UFO account of the wave.
View source →UFOs: Generals, Pilots, and Government Officials Go on the Record
Leslie Kean's landmark book opens with Belgian Major General Wilfried De Brouwer's detailed account of the Belgian UFO wave, making it the most prominent English-language source on the case from a military insider's perspective. De Brouwer describes the F-16 intercepts, radar data, and the military's inability to identify the objects.
View on Amazon →UFOs and the National Security State: Chronology of a Cover-up, 1941–1973 (Volume 1)
The first volume of Dolan's two-part chronological history of the national security dimensions of the UFO phenomenon. Provides context for government UFO investigations and secrecy relevant to cases like the Belgian wave.
View on Amazon →UFOs and the National Security State: The Cover-Up Exposed, 1973–1991 (Volume 2)
The second volume of Dolan's series, covering the UFO phenomenon through 1991. This volume covers the period of the Belgian UFO wave (1989–1990) and discusses the case in the context of global UFO history.
View on Amazon →Triangular UFOs: An Estimate of the Situation
A comprehensive study of triangular UFO sightings throughout history, including extensive coverage of the Belgian UFO wave as the defining case of the black triangle phenomenon. Marler documents historical cases and validates patterns in triangular UFO reports.
View source →UFOs: The Public Deceived
Philip Klass's skeptical work that established 'Klass's Law' — the principle that media coverage of UFOs creates a self-reinforcing cycle of misidentification and mass reporting. This law was later applied by skeptics to explain the Belgian UFO wave as a psychosocial phenomenon.
View source →Le modèle sociopsychologique du phénomène OVNI: Un cadre conceptuel interprétatif en sciences humaines
A Belgian psychologist's doctoral thesis on the psychosocial model of UFO phenomena, using the Belgian UFO wave as a primary case study. Argues that the wave does not contradict the psychosocial hypothesis and provides the leading science-based skeptical explanation.
View source →La Vague OVNI Belge ou le triomphe de la désinformation
One of the earliest skeptical critiques of the Belgian UFO wave, arguing that SOBEPS was spreading misinformation in the media and that the wave was a mass delusion boosted by the organization's activities.
View source →The Belgian UFO Wave of 1989–1992: A Neglected Hypothesis
A detailed skeptical analysis arguing that many Belgian UFO wave sightings can be explained by helicopters. Addresses the 'silence' reported by witnesses by noting that engine noise could be masked by witnesses' own automobile engines or wind conditions.
View source →🎬 Documentaries & Videos
Ten videos — documentaries about the Belgian UFO Wave and the black triangle mystery, F-16 intercept footage, General De Brouwer's presentation on the March 30, 1990 peak, radar analysis, and Brian Dunning's Skeptoid podcast episode providing the skeptical analysis. Click any thumbnail to play.
Belgian UFO wave, invasion of Belgium
nexusaliens
Documentary covering the Belgian UFO wave, including the 13,500+ witnesses and black triangle sightings.
Watch on YouTube →
THE BELGIAN UFO WAVE 1989-1990 - THE BLACK TRIANGLE MYSTERY?
Unknown
Documentary examining the black triangle mystery of the Belgian UFO wave.
Watch on YouTube →
Episode 337 LIVE: The Belgian UFO Wave
Unknown (Skeptical/Astronomy podcast)
Live episode examining the Belgian UFO Wave and considering the likelihood that the sightings were actually alien visitors.
Watch on YouTube →
The Belgium UFO That Defied Physics (S4) | The Proof Is Out There
The Proof Is Out There (History Channel)
History Channel episode examining the Belgian UFO that allegedly defied physics.
Watch on YouTube →
This European UFO Was Spotted by Thousands of People | Belgian UFO Wave
Unknown
Documentary about the influx of UFO sightings reported near Brussels, Belgium over the course of 5 months.
Watch on YouTube →
The Belgian UFO Wave of 1989–1990
Antoine Wielen
Overview documentary of the Belgian UFO Wave of 1989–1990.
Watch on YouTube →
F16 UFO intercept Belgian Air Force 1990
Unknown
Video covering the F-16 UFO intercept by the Belgian Air Force in 1990, noting the cohesion and surrealism the UFO wave brought to Belgium.
Watch on YouTube →
1990-03-30: Belgian UFO Peak per Wilfried de Brouwer
Unknown
Presentation by General Wilfried De Brouwer covering the peak of the Belgian UFO wave on March 30, 1990, including radar data and F-16 intercept details.
Watch on YouTube →
Belgian UFO Wave – Radar Locked on the Unknown
Unknown
Documentary about how Belgium became the center of one of the most credible UFO waves in modern history, featuring silent black triangles and radar locks.
Watch on YouTube →Skeptoid Podcast #538: The Belgian UFO Wave
Brian Dunning / Skeptoid
Brian Dunning's detailed skeptical analysis of the Belgian UFO wave, covering the F-16 chase, radar data, the Petit-Rechain photo hoax, and the psychosocial explanation.
Listen →THE UAP MAP ASSESSMENT
Belgium lost its famous photograph. It kept the case.
The Belgian Wave deserves its Tier 1 status not because thousands of reports can be treated as thousands of independent confirmations, and not because one dramatic photograph showed a black triangle. That photograph was a hoax and should be removed from the evidence column entirely.
The case survives because its strongest elements lie elsewhere. Named police officers reported extraordinary lights at the beginning of the wave. Similar reports continued across the region. The Belgian Air Force engaged openly with the problem. On 30–31 March 1990, visual reporting and ground radar contributed to the decision to launch two F-16s. Their radars recorded intermittent contacts. The pilots did not visually acquire an object, and later technical analysis makes the wildest acceleration claims much less secure than popular retellings suggest.
That is not a disappointing ending for a UFO enthusiast. It is precisely why Belgium remains important. After the weakest material is stripped away, there is still a serious historical question: **what generated the strongest police observations and enough military concern for Belgium to put fighters into the air?**
No single conventional explanation has been demonstrated for every strong report. At the same time, the wave almost certainly contains ordinary aircraft, celestial objects, expectation effects and radar artefacts among its long tail.
The photograph was fake. The scramble was real.
10 / BELGIAN UFO WAVE QUESTIONS
What the evidence says now.
WAS THE BELGIAN UFO WAVE A HOAX?
No single hoax explains the whole wave.
The famous Petit-Rechain photograph was a confessed model hoax. That removes the image as evidence, but it does not retroactively fabricate the earlier Eupen police reports or the later military response.
DID THE F-16s TRACK AN IMPOSSIBLE CRAFT?
The 2025 Salmon report weakens that claim.
The released technical analysis shows that some dramatic radar trajectories can arise from wingman identification, Kalman-filter prediction, target switching and short-lived returns. The radar record is real; the most extreme performance interpretation is not secure.
WHAT WAS THE PETIT-RECHAIN PHOTO?
A model photograph, not proof of a triangle.
Patrick Maréchal later said he made the image using a small model. It remains historically important because it shaped public memory of the wave, but it should not be counted as physical evidence.
WHAT STILL MAKES BELGIUM IMPORTANT?
The breadth of the independent record.
Police testimony, civilian reports, military involvement, radar documentation, contemporary press coverage and later technical analysis create an unusually rich archive. The challenge is separating those layers rather than averaging them into one claim.
OPEN CASEWORK
Help Improve This Case
Do you have original Belgian gendarmerie reports, first-generation witness interviews, Air Force documents, radar plots, press photographs with clear provenance, or SOBEPS material that can be traced to the original observation? We especially want records that help separate individual sightings from the wider wave.
Core sources used: The UAP Map master research archive; Belgian Air Force Lambrechts/Salmon radar-report material; early Eupen police-witness documentation; later technical radar analysis; Wikimedia Commons media records for the Petit-Rechain hoax image and period Belgian F-16 photography.