For more than twenty years, UFO believers have been citing the 1989-1990 wave of UFO sightings in Belgium as an unexplained mystery. For a period of several months, people in Belgium were reporting sightings of a triangular-shaped craft. It was one of the major chapters in Leslie Kean's recent best-selling book, "UFOs: Generals, Pilots, and Government Officials Go on the Record" (see my review of it in the March/April 2011 Skeptical Inquirer). Even Michael Shermer's review of Kean's book suggests that the Belgian sightings represent a "residue of anomalies" (Scientific American, March 28, 2011).
One big problem with the Belgian wave has always been the lack of photos or movies showing the object, despite hundreds of claimed sightings. Indeed, Kean seeks to dismiss the lack of evidence by noting that "twenty years ago, cell phones and relatively inexpensive, consumer-level digital and video cameras were not yet in use" (true, but film cameras were plentiful and widespread). Indeed, only one photo claiming to show this supposed 'triangular craft' has ever been seen (above). It was said to have been taken in Petit Rechain, Belgium in April, 1990 by a twenty-year-old man known only as "Patrick," although it was not released until four months later. The Belgian UFO investigative group SOBEPS investigated the photo and found it to be authentic. So did many other "experts". Kean writes,
Now we have a confession. The Belgian news organization RTL is reporting that the hoaxer has given his "Mea culpa" and now "lifts the veil": The reporter interviewed "Patrick" in his home, where he showed them many slides and prints. "l’OVNI de Petit-Rechain n’est pas un vaisseau spatial venu d’une lointaine galaxie mais un panneau de frigolite peint et équipé de trois spots" ("The UFO of Petit-Rechain is not a spaceship from a distant galaxy but a panel of painted styrofoam with three spots affixed.")
http://www.rtl.be/info/belgique/faitsdivers/812149/le-mystere-du-celebre-ovni-des-annees-90-elucide-une-supercherie
A team under the direction of Professor Marc Acheroy discovered that a triangular shape became visible when overexposing the slide. After that, the original color slide was further analyzed by Frangois Louange, specialist in satellite imagery with the French national space research center, CNES; Dr. Richard Haines, former senior scientist with NASA; and finally Professor Andre Marion, doctor in nuclear physics and professor at the University of Paris-Sud and also with CNES. (p. 30)UFO skeptics have long supplied reasons why this photo is not credible. For one thing, it shows nothing in the background to allow its size or distance to be ascertained. It could as easily be a tiny model seen close-up as a giant hovering craft. In the 1990s the Belgian skeptic Wim van Utrecht showed that the photo could easily be reproduced using a small model. In a recent issue of Tim Printy's WebZine Sunlite, an article by Roger Pacquay notes several inconsistencies about the photo.
Now we have a confession. The Belgian news organization RTL is reporting that the hoaxer has given his "Mea culpa" and now "lifts the veil": The reporter interviewed "Patrick" in his home, where he showed them many slides and prints. "l’OVNI de Petit-Rechain n’est pas un vaisseau spatial venu d’une lointaine galaxie mais un panneau de frigolite peint et équipé de trois spots" ("The UFO of Petit-Rechain is not a spaceship from a distant galaxy but a panel of painted styrofoam with three spots affixed.")
http://www.rtl.be/info/belgique/faitsdivers/812149/le-mystere-du-celebre-ovni-des-annees-90-elucide-une-supercherie
 |
| "Patrick" explaining that once he showed his hoax photo to his colleagues, he could no longer hold back the photo's march all across the world |
"On arrive à tromper tout le monde avec une bête maquette en frigolite".
("One has managed to fool the whole world with a silly model made of styrofoam.")[The formerly anonymous hoaxer is now known to be Patrick Marechal. See http://tinyurl.com/KeanBe ]
Ah, a confession, by the person who did it. Proof that the confession was a hoax, and the UFO was real!
ReplyDeleteOr that is how the True Believers will spin it.
Sigh....
Of course, we also know the U.S Military showed up in Belgium. It is interesting to note that the man shortly after said it was a hoax. More so, given scientists looked at the photo and agreed it was real. And we know there was in fact, at least 30 groups of witnesses including military pilots and police officers that saw it. We also know witnesses were pressured to keep quiet. Look are there Military projects that are assumed to be space aliens? Yes, are there blimps that are the same? Planes? Weather Anomalies? Yes but are all the witnesses world wide as in Belgium all wrong? Seems unlikely.
Delete> given scientists looked at the photo and agreed it was real
Delete"professor Marc Acheroy, from the Royal Military School, Bruxelles, authorized one of his students to use a digitalized version of this slide to test and increase its skills in computer processing and image enhancement techniques. As professor Acheroy explained to me in a personal letter, he never tried to judge what kind of object had been photographed"
http://www.skepticreport.com/sr/?p=162
I wonder how much the debunkers paid this guy. It is a fact that throughout the twentieth century, there have been numerous instances where debunkers paid witnesses lots of money to say that they were lying or participating in hoaxes. Could this be one of them?
Delete@Art
Delete> It is a fact that...there have been numerous instances where debunkers paid witnesses
How fortunate that we have an expert here to teach us!
Please, Art, show us the documents that demonstrate conclusively the fact that debunkers paid off witnesses. Make sure these documents include the names of both parties.
I thank you in advance for dispelling my ignorance!
While Art's assertion that this guy was paid to confess to a hoax is most likely unfounded, I do think there's some reason for suspicion toward confessions. They are much like witness accounts or even confessions to crimes in their lack of reliability.
DeleteA person may change their story for a number of reasons. They may have actually perpetrated a hoax and wanted to come clean. Or they may enjoy the limelight and want to stay in it (whether or not the photo was a hoax). Or perhaps they got paid or pressured into making the statement. I don't think we should immediately rule out any of these possibilities simply because they don't fit our preconceived notions (that goes both for believers and skeptics).
For a non-UFO related example of someone being paid to lie, one may look at the animal rights groups who paid a barn worker to make false accusations against Barnum & Bailey regarding the treatment of their elephants.
http://jonathanturley.org/2012/07/17/the-greatest-rico-claim-on-earth-ringling-brothers-allowed-to-pursue-animal-rights-organizations-in-racketeering-action/
Now if you're wondering my view on this whole thing. I think it may very well be a combination of factors. Perhaps it was started by an unusual atmospheric phenomenon (plasma or statically-charged dust?), followed by misidentification of other celestial objects or aircraft by those who were eager to see something for themselves, followed by the hoaxed photograph and all encouraged by UFO believers (and the press, ever eager for attention).
July 27: The head of the Belgian UFO group COBEPS acknowledges that the UFO photo from Petit-Rechain is a hoax. However, he says that this does not invalidate the rest of the sightings from 1989-90:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.rtl.be/info/belgique/faitsdivers/812259/le-faux-ovni-ne-remet-pas-les-autres-en-cause-
True enough. Which brings us to the question, if UFOs were flying all around Belgium twenty years ago, why is there not a single authentic photograph or video of them?
im not sure but i think it has to do with the fact that 20 years ago not everyone was walking around with a camera in their pockets
DeleteBecause UFO's are high up generally and show up at random, late at night most often. Do you have a camera at 3am? Are you even up? The fact is most don't have a camera handy even now and the tens of thousands that have world wide? Are all mocked by tools like you who call the hoaxers or wingnuts.
Delete> tools like you
DeleteCliff, good to see you arguing from the facts and not resorting to a mere foam-flecked tirade.
But if your new ACA insurance plan comes with a free rabies shot, take it -- just to be safe.
I just wonder why there's people like you who go around finding the one single piece of evidence that is supposedly fake and then call the entire event 'fake'? There was a huge number of the most credible witnesses anyone could ask for. As for not getting photos, I would bet that even today with camera phones everywhere, all you would end up with would be garbage pics and even if you did get some ones, people like you would be saying they're fake. There's been endless proof of UFO's but people like you will never believe in them and unless one of them lands smack on the White House lawn, and not in Belgium, China, or where ever, because that would not be enough proof for you, no, it would have to land smack on the front lawn of good ol' USA, and I bet even then, you would STILL not believe it was real. And let me guess, you think that global warming is also a 'hoax', right? Yeah, I thought so.
Delete> There's been endless proof of UFO's
DeletePakow, first, the plural of UFO is UFOs not UFO's (see my citations at link).
http://terrythecensor.blogspot.ca/2011/10/plural-of-ufo-is-ufos-not-ufos.html
Second, don't you really mean there is endless evidence NOT resulting in a proof?
Kodi, et. al.- on 8/10/1972, a meteorite clipped the atmosphere and was visible for a total of 101 seconds.
DeleteDespite its being completely unexpected, appearing relatively briefly, and passing over the least-densely populated area of the continental U.S., it was witnessed, heard, and photographed by thousands and even captured on film. This was in 1972.
It's in Robert's book UFO Sightings- the Evidence. Check it out.
That's one instance. 101 seconds is a long time. Similarly, there are tons of ufo photos as well. Sure many of them may be hoaxed, but many of them are not.
DeleteThis is a great story, Robert.
ReplyDeleteI wonder if you saw my exposure of long time UFO author, Phil Imbrogno at notaghost.com?
Lance Moody
Hello,
ReplyDeleteAuguste Meessen was on Belgian TV yesterday and today; and contrary to Patrick Ferryn (COBEPS president) he claims that the hoaxer is now lying and that the photo is genuine. As predicted above by Chris Booth. Not very surprising. Just frustrating that TV gives him so much space, and doesn't interview any skeptic on the subject...
Skeptically yours,
As I said, we know U.S Military was there after the wave and collected much of the info. The Hoaxer as some call him, was never really questioned further as to how he managed to hoax with a little model when UFO Experts submitted the picture to scientists, phiysists and all of them said the photo was real that showed movement in the photo and propulsion. Also a model was made and it was proven it was not in fact, a model. Did anyone even question him if U.S Military showed up at his door? If he was pressured? My guess is, yes he was.
DeleteSorry for random praising, but i just love this blog!
ReplyDeleteAlways good to have a sound opinion when you otherwise find so much uncritical material on the net.
Some will say that this fake brings ufology into disrepute. My response is on the lines of those UK professional footballers who now and again bring the game into disrepute, which is:
ReplyDelete"How can a disreputable sport be brought into disrepute?" The same applies to ufology.
While the Belgium sightings are not necessarily invalidated, this confession would certainly seem to decimate the long-standing interest in them. Absent that (seemingly) astounding key photographic evidence, this becomes simply another mysterious flap.
ReplyDeleteIt will be interesting to see how long this photo continues to crop up on the internet as an authentic proof of UFO reality. Like the mythical hydra, the self-perpetuating aspect makes such entrenched stories remarkably hard to kill.
Best wishes.
Tyler Kokjohn
The Photo was not a hoax. And those sightings in Belgium? Are discredited how you fking tool. Military Pilots, Police, Citizens all saw them. Hundreds upon hundreds saw them. Even if the photo was a hoax which it was recently said it wasn't, even if it was, we know for a fact that while there was a hoaxer in crop circles, the majority are in fact, real and unexplained. It is also a world wide phenomenon that could not of been hoaxed by two people. There will always be hoaxers, always but they are attention getters, seeking 15 minutes of fame. There will also always be unexplained and real sightings. Even now many zoologists and scientists believe bigfoot could in fact be, a undiscovered ape species. I think without question, one day we will be living in a world where we fully are aware of extra terrestrial beings visiting us.
DeleteThis is disclosure.
ReplyDeleteHow do we know this confessor is not a confession hoaxer trying to get attention? Photo is still probably a hoax but why would he confess after so much time? Doesn't make sense to me.
ReplyDeleteCall me crazy, but if I were to do a photo hoax and reveal it twenty years from now, I would make a "this is how I made it" report, with photos and videos and the original ufo model from those days. This is what I don´t believe this "hoaxers" with just a phrase "Yeah, I did it".
ReplyDeleteMOÑACO, that is what he did. See the video from the Belgian TV. (Somehow I'm not getting any sound when I play that excerpt.)It's not just "Yeah I did it."
ReplyDeleteNo Robert, he never explained how he did it. He explained how he made the model, hung it and took photos. He never explained how he fooled scientists, physicists and so on who all agreed the photo was real, showed movement and propulsion. What I want to ask him is, how did a still model that he admitted he just hung, showed movement, propulsion and so on. How did he manage to create that effect with a hung, simple model. Also, did anyone watch him remake it? And retake the same photo to see if he could repeat the process? No. Did anyone ask him if he was lying about confessing and was maybe pressured? Did anyone give a lie detector test? No. lol This guy literally showed a model, told them this was how he did it without even demonstrating it all and retaking the photo.
Deletehttp://www.rtl.be/info/belgique/faitsdivers/812149/le-mystere-du-celebre-ovni-des-annees-90-elucide-une-supercherie This video?, well I don´t understand spoken french but that video shows nothing, if not that link, could you please tell me which one is?
ReplyDeleteIf the photo is a hoax it makes little difference, more then 13,000 people witnessed this incident with more then 2,000 filing reports. The Belgium AF scrambled two F-16's to check it out and the 12 police confirmed 8 different sightings. Now and "anonymous" guy Patrick steps forward after 20 years and the mainstream media, jumps on the bandwagon as it is all a hoax! The skeptics say helicopters or "mass delusion". Where is the common sense in this skeptical reasoning!
ReplyDeletehttp://www.educatinghumanity,com
It makes a difference. The photo put that image into the minds of millions of people, some of whom later reported triangles craft whenever they saw multiple lights in the sky. If this is a hoax, it's possible that thousands of UFO reports are simply social constructions.
ReplyDeleteThat is complete nonsense Terry. One Hoax which was later recanted, somehow invalidates 13000 witnesses who all reported their sightings before they even saw this picture? You do realize that those Military Pilots and Police that saw the object during the Belgium Wave never knew this photo was even taken until well after the wave. What they reported? came before. So how can you invalidate them? How can you say every sighting around the world is fake because of 1 hoaxer when we know for a fact, hoaxers are a very small minority who just want 15 minutes of fame. Grow up dude.
DeleteCliff, I said later reports by people who saw multiple lights -- not triangles -- but construed them to be triangles anyway. I did not mean contemporary Belgian witnesses.
DeleteGo on youtube -- people see three balloon flares or Chinese lanterns or whatnot and call it a triangle UFO.
Nice backpedal, Terry, but what was said was said. You sound like...A TRUE BELIEVER! Which is, as we know, someone who draws conclusions out of whole cloth, not fact. Nobody knew about the photo before people started reporting what they say. There weren't thousands of people comparing their stories on the nights in question, certainly not on the first night, but their stories reconcile. Fact, not speculation.
Delete> someone who draws conclusions out of whole cloth, not fact.
DeleteBruce, reading complrehension, please.
I used the words "if" and "possible" in my October 21, 2011 statement. Clearly, a conjecture, not a conclusion. I addressed why the question of a hoax was important, I did not assert as a fact that the reports were social constructions. And I have already made clear, I was referring to later reports.
> You sound like...A TRUE BELIEVER!
Bruce, you sound like someone who likes to argue about things people did not say, instead of arguing about what they did say.
Why?
When an "anonymous witness" steps forward after 20 years of silence really makes no difference. If I stepped forward, "anonymously" and said Terry the Censor was caught in a sexual act with a minor, would you believe it, would you print it, would you take it as gospel. On the other hand would you say this witness, may be no witness at all and his/her story does not deserve serious consideration or publication. Anonymous stories should stay anonymous unless there is irrefutable verification.
ReplyDeleteAccording to the original reports the F16s took photographs,and film in which case this was not the only material evidence. I'd be more interested in seeing the Belgian airforce pictures than in this easily faked photo.
ReplyDeleteSince when is the word 'Belgium' and adjective, by the way?
Richard,
ReplyDeleteThe formerly anonymous hoaxer is now known to be Patrick Marechal. See http://tinyurl.com/KeanBe . In fact, he is even joining in the discussion of the photo (although his command of English is rather weak).
I agree, however, that comments that are fully "anonymous" should be given little credence. But even before Marechal went public with his full name, he was known to certain UFO investigators and journalists in Belgium, so that's not entirely "anonymous."
It's interesting that Richard brings up child sexual abuse. (Classy move, Ricky.)
ReplyDeleteMillions of Americans had a false image of a triangle UFO put in their heads, and consequently many Americans falsely reported triangle UFOs (see youtube for tens of thousands of nighttime plane flights incorrectly labeled as UFOs).
Similarly, back in the 1980s, millions of Americans had a false fear or rampant childhood sexual abuse put in their heads by therapists, self-help authors and preachers, and consequently many American adults falsely reported childhood sexual abuse for which they had no memory or evidence of any kind.
Are these two things comparable?
Ask the kids who get hypnotised by UFO investigators because their idiot parents think aliens are here abducting people.
I am not buying this "hoaxer" at the moment. After reading this article I have searched for more details and to be honest there isn't much more than what you have presented.
ReplyDeleteThis is not to say I still don't think the photo may have been faked in some way, but I am not sure it was by this guy. If he really wanted to prove himself over 20 years he should have given some sort of demonstration, video, detailed explanation of motives...something that would be more convincing.
As of now, believing that this man is an actual "hoaxer", based on the very little evidence and proof, is akin to believing what the Ufologists believe with the amount of data they have. Posting this and then believing it really makes the two sides the same. Waste of time.
First let me stress that I am neither a believer nor a skeptic
ReplyDeleteAnyway I did a little more research about the picture being questioned. It is funny that a blog about being a skeptic and priding itself in reasonable scientific research, would instead resort to the same exact tactics that Ufologist use to acquire their believers.
For one, the post above is completely misleading because the picture in question is not the picture shown above. It a different, less famous picture that is being called a hoax now. I will give you the article below that shows the actually picture in question.
There really isn't much for me to say besides if you want to be a skeptic, do thorough research. Otherwise you are exactly like the true believers, just on different sides.
http://www.lesoir.be/actualite/belgique/2011-07-26/l-ovni-de-petit-rechain-etait-un-panneau-de-frigolite-853163.php
Pugnax,
ReplyDeleteAs I posted three weeks before your complaint, "The formerly anonymous hoaxer is now known to be Patrick Marechal. See http://tinyurl.com/KeanBe . In fact, he is even joining in the discussion of the photo (although his command of English is rather weak)." Plus a former major promoter of that Petit-Rechain photo, UFOlogist Patrick Ferryn (COBEPS president), who interviewed Marechal when the photo was new, has accepted the validity of the confession from when it was first made. I can't imagine what more "evidence" you require.
Your comment displays typical UFO logic:
A. Somebody has a blurry photo of something supposed to be an interplanetary spacecraft: "Wow, that looks authentic! It's probably true."
B. The guy confesses that he faked the photo: "I don't believe that confession! I need to see absolute proof!"
UFO logic, or Occam's Razor blunted.
The supposed hoaxer's correct Facebook account is to be found here: https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1482613054
ReplyDeleteLet me tell you this. 1.Yes he did it (I know him; I was an investigator at the time).
ReplyDelete2. There are other pics and video of the "object" , but none so precise and distinct as the Patrick's pic. Many people took pics of the huge "object" (also professional photographer): but they all were very surprised to see only a little light on the pics when developed.
3. The triangle was seen BEFORE the pic was taken and shown. That's why Patrick made it look like a triangle with three lights ACCORDING TO THE WITNESSES. Witnesses didnot "copy" the pic!!! The triangle object was seen FIRST !
R.P. (investigator at the time).
Are you trying to say that 13,000 Belgians are delusional? Also they saw the UFOs FOUR MONTHS BEFORE this picture came out.
ReplyDeleteWhy were Air Force Jets sent to intercept something? The
RADAR was delusional and picked up ghost signals and "interpreted" it as aircraft?
Why doesn't the Belgian AF release RADAR images and photos of the UFOs which I am sure the F-16 must of taken?
Plus what about all the acceleration and deceleration of the target craft, the locking on and the lock-break due to high g maneourves (I can never get the spelling of this French word right)?
You mean to say the F-16 pilots, GCI, everybody was delusional ?
The Skeptics are increasingly seen to adopt ad-hominem attacks.
Calling witnesses delusional is not science. Science is to accept observational inputs and then try to explain it, the explanation can be terrestrial, it does not have to be extra-terrestrial but to call witnesses delusional because it does not fit established scientific theories is bad science.
Now if they were aliens (it is only a hypothesis), we do not know yet, I think the logical place to be would be Belgium because NATO headquarters is located in Brussels.
ReplyDeleteThe earth's most powerful military organization is headquartered there.
What about this video ? Is the AF chief is lying on TV? I am not saying it was an ET, but it was not of terrestrial origin.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7psGj4M1ZI
It's our government's TR-3B spaceship of some sort. Am so f*cked up now.
ReplyDeleteHighly unlikely it was our TR 3b project. You are telling me we built a FLEET of 3 billion dollar experimental, advanced craft and tested them halfway across the world instead of over Russia, our own Country? Cuba? No we flew to Belgium with a fleet of 3 billion dollar craft that is top secret. Just to get them photographed and shot at? Right, that makes sense we are testing 3 billion craft where they could get shot down. Nope, not likely.
DeletePhoto hoax or not, this blog is shit...it's true most UFO reports are bullshit but that means nothing in regard to the possibility of ETs visiting Earth. Fermi's statement that"...if there's ETs out there, then why haven't we seen them? This means they do not exist" is complete rubbish (yes...I paraphrased).
ReplyDeleteLook at it this way...you're an ET on the planet Htrae (Earth backwards pronounced "huh-tray") and you've never seen an earthling...so do we not exist?
Bottom line, the absence of concrete evidence proving the existence of some thing does not equate to the thing's non-existence - it means we don't have the evidence - THAT'S IT!!!! The scientific method be damned!!!!
Critical thinking people - use the brain that was likely engineered by the ETs!!!!
there are several videos and photos of the wave of 89-91 the Petit-Rechain was the clearest. The others were affected via infared radiation causing a dimming affect. That the hoaxed photo did not allways seemed strange to some. For the author of this article to state that this was the only photo of the whole wave shows how little time he spent investagating the facts of this case. Some may twist the truth to serve thier own ajenda
ReplyDelete> there are several videos and photos of the wave of 89-91
DeleteWhere are they? I can find two photos: one is an admitted hoax and the other looks just like it. Where are the videos?
You know, I am interested also in what the skeptics think happened, just explain what it was without boring me to death. All you do is wave around a hoaxed picture and call witnesses into question. I've never seen anything unexplained myself and if I saw the thing and knew it was helicopters in formation, I'd be saying it was helicopters in formation and this is why. Your fact or faked stuff does nothing to show what these people were actually looking at.
ReplyDeletethis is true, due to the fact i have seen that craft my self for 1 minute and 30 seconds at low altitude,,so naw sayers can be just that,if they totally disregard UFO's then i just laugh cause i know other wise, but it now makes sense to me why the picture didnt look right to me if it was the same
DeleteDoes the fact that this photo was faked discount the hundreds of thousands of reports by credible people all around the world? You can't take a single example and use it to undermine all the other sightings around the world by pilots, military personnel, police officers, government officials, and regular citizens. Something is going on, and I'm certain that someday it will be revealed. I certainly can't discount what happened to me while camping on my sister's property in a large open field, when I went into my tent to go to sleep a circular light about 4 or 5 inches in diameter appeared on the roof of the tent as if it were coming from the outside above me, and it moved around in a machine like movement, no shaking, just a smooth and precise machine like fashion, as soon as it disappeared, I got out of the tent and looked up only to see nothing but a clear star filled sky and nothing around me in that large open field. I won't go as far as saying I definitely had an alien experience, but I've never been able to figure it out.
ReplyDeletestyrofoam? the belgian air force chased this thing
ReplyDeletethe fact that this picture was fake doesn t discredit the Belgian UFO wave in the least1)there are countless testimonies 2)UFOs flew over two police officers3)two jets were scrambled and locked on target.......Suffice it to say that if the hard core evidence of UFO reality were to be weighed by a grand jury,there is no doubt that an indictment would be handed down!....The fact that the scientifict community remains uninterested and scornfully dismissive of the phenomenon is a real shame on the part of the very people that should keep an open mind.Science wa often proved wrong in the past .Consequently ,they should be more subdued and realize that what they say is not always gospel!
ReplyDeleteRegardless of whether this photo is proven to be a fake or not, the simple fact of the matter is that it's completely irrelevant to much of the discussion presented above. The photo didn't surface until four months after the event took place, so the argument stating that the masses were somehow influenced by the craft in the picture doesn't hold water. Also, one photograph doesn't nullify thousands of eyewitness testimonies, some of which came from Air Force personnel. The object was radar tracked, seen from the ground and also viewed in multiple locations by multiple groups of people. The issue here isn't that the Belgian event didn't happen - the fact that it did is undeniable. The issue here is the authenticity of a photograph. Using this single item of dubious origin to make an attempt to 'debunk' the entire historical account isn't skepticism, it's idiocy.
ReplyDeleteI'm no 'True Believer', and I'm certainly no 'Skeptic'. My personal stance is this: 95% of the entire UFO phenomenon is nothing more than lies, ignorance & disinformation, which serves to divert attention away from the real, undeniable, objective truth. There IS something going on. We ARE being lied to. How many of you would have believed in the NSA's mass surveillance program before Edward Snowden blew the whistle? I'm sure the Skeptics would have loved to label anyone presenting such a claim as delusional and paranoid. If they can hide the truth about that, then what else are they hiding? Personally, thinking about it keeps me up at night...
I'm skeptical of most claims but this case is one of the most interesting. The photo was a hoax yes but the fact of the matter remains that not only did the intial sightings on the 30 of March 1990 come from police officers the objects were tracked but both ground and plaane based radar performering sudden accelerations of 25g. 25g is not something that any plane in 1990 was capable of. As for the lack of photos the fact is that this occured during the darkest part of the night 23.00-0200, the witnesses only described lights flying in formations which isn't something your typical film camera will be able to get a picture of without a long exposure which is rather difficult to do when the object is moving fast. Any Astronomers will be able to vouch for how difficult that was even with something as slow moving as a planet. As for the mass delusion I can believe that later incidents could be attributed to that but the radar and other instrumentation readings wasn't something the operators and pilots imagined as it was recorded.
ReplyDeleteFirst off, yes the photograph is a hoax. And keep in mind that back in 1989-1990, cellphone cameras had not yet been invented yet and the majority of people didn't walk around with mechanical cameras and video recorders. Nevertheless, photographic evidence does not prove that there was an actual UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECT in the skies nor does the lack of photographic evidence prove that there wasn't one.
ReplyDeleteThe fatal flaw in the arguments of skeptics here is that the object was detected by military radar: BOTH ground stations AND interceptor fighter jets. Moreover, the airborne and ground radar readings were stored on magnetic tapes which where then studied by the Belgian Electronic Warefare Center. A statement by Belgian major General De Brower said that electromagnetic interference(including that caused by atmospheric phenomena) had been effectively ruled out. So are we to believe that the Belgian military was LYING? Somehow I doubt it. It's clear that many of you self-proclaimed skeptics are cynics trying desperately to argue that it could not possibly have been an unidentified aircraft despite the strong evidence in favor of it. I am not claiming that this was an extraterrestrial space craft(which is what UFO is often synonymous for), but an UNIDENTIFIED flying object that remains a mystery to this day.
All these comments are well written with no errors. All of them talk about the same thing and say the same conclusions. It seem suspicious to me that they don't have any misspellings. Are they written by the same person with different names, or do they belong to the same group trying to discredit a non-believer? To me, a Spanish speaking person, they all seem written by the same person, or a group of persons dedicated to debunk a debunker.
ReplyDeleteThis whole thing irks me because in the original (2011) edition of my book I wrote that with the Belgian triangle photo, UFOlogists fnally had the "smoking gun" evidence they needed to support the ETH or IDH. (If the craft were secret advanced US, Russian or Chinese ones they would not have cavorted around there and then, drawing so much attention.) So when I learned the photo was faked I was incensed and made to look a fool so had to spend money and time revising the book. (Aliens and UFOs: Physical, Psychic or Social Reality?) I took the opportunity to update the chapter on Alien Abductions and present powerful new evidence to support my view that the objective reality of abductions by space aliens is totally flawed. Just as that was almost finished an old friend happened to phone me and told me about her own near-abduction experience from Oregon 20 years ago, which she says was totally vivid and felt totally real, not like a dream, and she claims she was not asleep at the time. This put me in a bind as one trusts one's friends, so I had to make an effort to detach myself and apply my own analysis objectively, with some helpful input from Prof. Terry Matheson (author of Alien Abductions) adding more pages to the new edition so the final new edition (2014) is nearly 500 pp. long.
ReplyDeleteFans of Robert Sheaffer will note I refer to him fifteen times in my book mostly very favourably (especially re authenticity of photos) but eventually and overall reach the opposite conclusion.
My problem is that despite the effort to do the new edition, the popular sellers of the e-book version (Amazon, i-books and Ingram) are still only selling the 2011 edition where I naively made a big deal of the Belgian photo. PLEASE DO NOT BUY IT! You have to go to the publisher's website to get the corrected and extended 2014 edition (actually at a lower price): http://www.booklocker.com/5920.
Well until it can be demonstrated that the object seen over Belgium in 1989-1990 and detected by NATO radar was indeed an existing aircraft of terrestrial origin, it remains an UNIDENTIFIED FLYING OBJECT(which is what the UFO acronym actually stands for).
DeleteIf it turned out to be an extraterrestrial spacecraft that it's no longer a UFO, but an IFO.
My own opinion on this supposedly hoaxed photo can be summed up in three famous words from a TV ad - where's the beef? As far as I know the model this alleged hoaxer used for the original photo has never been presented. Nor has the peculiar striations in the appearance of the corner lights on this triangular object ever been duplicated by any model.
ReplyDeleteAcceptance of the authenticity of hoaxers claims needs to be held up to the same high standard as one expects in a research laboratory, namely reproducibility. This hoaxers claims, decades on, is reminiscent of the guy who claimed to be wearing a monkey suit in the Patterson-Gimlin film. That monkey suit never materialized.
I'm not saying that the former is proof of the existence of UFOs, or the latter proof of bigfoot's existence, but for these claimed hoaxers to be fully convincing, the props they used need to be brought forward, so that direct comparison with the original imagery can be made.
I personally saw it but I was only 12 and had no cam with me.
ReplyDeletePardon my very late reply to this old post (I've been following the "Belgian wave" since the early 90's), however, I think Patrick Marechal should put the provenance of this photograph to rest by reconstructing his Styrofoam model, and photographing it to replicate the Petit-Rechian photo to exact precision, thereby proving that it is, or is not a hoax.
ReplyDeleteMoreover, certain facts don't stack up to it being a hoax to me and I will outline them here:
1. He took two photographs of the object however, according to Marechal, the first was a blank. Why would a hoaxer make such a statement in the first instance? That raises a red flag for me.
2. It is clear from his FB site that he is a keen wildlife photographer, and there is not thing in these photo's that appears to suggest that he enjoys hoaxing photographs, just one post about the Petti-Rechain photo which seems totally out of place.
3. When first interviewed by the authorities at the time of releasing the Petit-Rechain photograph was found to be a very honest and credible witness. It seems out of place for him to be labelling himself as a hoaxer some 20 years later.
His word that the photo was a hoax is not enough for me, as there is no proof that he was not paid off or pressured into making the statement.
Here is Leslie Kean's retort to the photograph being a hoax: (this was posted on her FB site a few months after her book "UFOs: Generals, Pilots and Government Officials Go On the Record" was published: One caveat is that I am not sure if any of these points have been resolved since then. Anyone care to comment?
ReplyDeleteWorking against him are the following points:
1) he refuses to give investigators the name and contact info of his girlfriend, now his ex-wife, who was there when he took the photo.
2) PM is trying to get money from the person he sold the copyright to, and is taking him to court to claim it. That person, Guy Mossay, a well-known journalist who worked for a leading Belgian press agency, states they had a written agreement giving him ownership of the photo, as was standard; PM claims there was no agreement. There are other contradictions in interviews with both of them. Mossay, who since moved to France, is trying to find the agreement. This battle could give PM a motive for claiming the photo is a hoax – to get back at Mossay – but this is pure speculation.
3) PM says he has 12 photos of the original model hanging from a wire, and that he would look for them, but he hasn’t produced them.
4) PM said he would recreate the model and the photo. When he presented his recreated photo to investigator Patrick Ferryn, it did not look like the Petit Rechain photo. PM says it’s because they no longer make the same bulbs he used at the time.
5) How was the ‘halo effect” as documented by Prof. Marion created by a Styrofoam model? Marion died a year ago, but this question needs to be posed to other scientists. Also, could the unique characteristics of the corner lights and their rotations, with a very different central light, have been created with light bulbs? If PM can’t recreate it, can someone else? "