the Belgian UFO Wave is best Explained as Aliens

Hi daley, thanks for the opportunity to debate. I'd not heard about this alleged incident before seeing this debate, but after following the link provided by my opponent and the subsequent links that follow from ithere, I believe that there are far more rational and likely explanations for all the observed phenomena. The resolution states that "the Belgian UFO Wave is best Explained as Aliens" and since my opponent is Pro and instigator he clearly has the burden of proving this extraordinary claim. I am mildly perturbed to see him state that "Round 1 is for opening arguments and all other round are for rebuttals" since he hasn't provided any evidence or a clear argument in his opening round. I am hoping that he means round 1 is for brief outline and round 2 will be for opening arguments. Just in case, I will respond to some of the assertions and then present a brief outline of a contrary explanation _____________________ "If anyone has a more logical explanation I'd love to debate it." This appears to be a subtle attempt to shift the burden of proof. As Con, it is my responsibility to cast reasonable doubt on the alien hypothesis and that will be my main focus. I will however attempt to present more viable alternative interpretations to any evidence my opponent brings. "These things were traveling at speeds that would be deadly to any human" Witnesses on the ground are not likely to be able to give accurate assessments of the speed of flying objects. "These things ... were tracked on radar ... these things sped away whenever a radar locked on them" This is a clear contradiction; how were they "tracked" if a lock could not be kept on them? Bizarre radar readouts are most plausibly explained by equipment malfunction and do not represent confirmation of extraordinary speeds. "seen by thousands" Objects in the sky may have been reportedly seen by thousands but there appears to be far less consistency in the descriptions given than certain publications would care to admit. ________________________ I believe the most plausible explanation for these events is mass hysteria http://en.wikipedia.org... exacerbated by the over-enthusiastic speculation of unscientifically minded individuals in it's aftermath. 1) No pictorial evidence showing anything unusual was produced until 4 months after the event, when an anonymous image was released that was widely reproduced and lauded as evidence for 20 years (despite contradicting most descriptions). Pro's wiki source explains just why this image doesn't stand up under scrutiny and describes how someone has finally come forward in the last few days confessing to the hoax. http://en.wikipedia.org... 2) The fighter pilots who were dispatched never claimed to have seen any unusual objects in the sky and apparently believed the strange radar readings were the result of equipment failure. This is mentioned in this thorough debunking (by a reformed extra-terrestrial hypothesiser) of the work of self-deluding ufologists who hyped the sightings so much after the event. http://www.skepticreport.com... 3) The majority of the descriptions of objects seen that night are a pretty good match for helicopters, triangular lights and all. This document expounds at length: http://gmh.chez-alice.fr... Page 2 shows an artists interpretation of one of the craft that ufologists demonstrated incredible confirmation bias in re-producing as evidence for their theories. It's in the previous link too. Look at it and tell me it looks like anything other than a chopper. __________________________ That's all for now. I await some thorough argumentation and supporting evidence from my opponent. Thanks.