Breaking News on Belgian TV: Famous flying triangle picture is a fake confesses hoaxer

Originally posted by mcrom901
what about the video?

eta....

was that taken from here.... www.ufocasebook.com...

edit on 27/7/11 by mcrom901 because: waffling issues

If this picture is a hoax, the guy who hoaxed it was just going off the hype of a real incident. However, I believe that video was said to have been the result of a radar anomaly because at some points the object they're tracking appears to dip below ground level, which doesn't make sense and should be impossible (Yeah I know, aliens can do anything including phasing through solid matter or hacking our radar to make it look like they went into the ground. I know someone will say that).

So I'm not sure what to think about the picture or that radar data, but I do believe the eyewitness testimony.

reply to post by spacevisitor


thanks mate any chance of the following in english...

Hi mcrom901, I searched around a bit but could not find it, perhaps one of our respected French members is willing to make a transcript of what is said in English, which would be great.

This is some information I found which could be already posted here but with the wrong photo in my opinion.

www.ibtimes.com... tm

For some reason does the link above not work,

Here a site where another link is posted that’s works well.

ufoomnibus.com...

I really don’t know if this photo is also accepted as being genuine or that it is a hoax, do you or anyone else know something about that?
But what draw my attention is that you see a same sort of diffuse light next to the object as is also visible in the Petit-Rechain photo posted by IsaacKoi.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/893c1c158803.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/1e0bb3366d36.jpg[/atsimg]

Could that be caused due reflection of some light on the object in the lens perhaps????

If that could be the reason, then I find that quite remarkable because the hoaxer did not said anything about an attached light or such on his “model”, he speaks about sticking things to it, but not lights.

"You can do a lot with a little; we managed to trick everyone with a piece of polystyrene. We made the model with polystyrene, we painted it and then we started sticking things to it, then we suspended it in the air ... then we took the photo,"

I always thought that the photographer was anonymous so I was a little bit surprised when I saw 2 year ago in James Fox documentary - I KNOW WHAT I SAW - in the part where Belgium photo was showed over the screen, that it was titled as:

"Original photograph
By Guy Mossay
SOFAM BELGIUM 1990"

In this latest revelation, author of the photograph is named as Patrick (last name not given). Guy Mossay is referenced on many websites in connection with different pictures so my first thought was that he (Guy) is maybe a journalist or professional photographer who in fact only published original photo in newspapers at the time or something like that.

User Nablar from Reality Uncovered has stated on July 27, 2011 that "the hoaxer sold the rights to a professional photographer (M. Mossay) in (or before?) august 1990."
--- end of quote ---

If that info is correct, it explains the discrepancy between the names (Guy vs. Patrick).

Also, it seems that Patrick Ferryn (not the same Patrick mentioned above), president of COBEPS, stated that this admission resolves origin of photo but can't affect the integrity of Belgium UFO wave itself.
www.rtl.be...

Anyway, RTL has added another video today - 16 minute feature about the whole story. Guests in the studio were Auguste Meessen and Pierre Magarain.
www.rtl.be...

If anyone can paraphrase (from French) what was said on that last 16 minute video that would be great.

Here is the complete video and article set from RTL that I was able to compile and archive so far:

ARTICLES:

July 26, 2011
The Mystery of a famous UFO – A hoax
www.rtl.be...

July 26, 2011
Patrick Ferryn, president of COBEPS: this admission resolves origin of photo but can't affect the integrity of Belgium UFO wave itself
www.rtl.be...

July 27, 2011
UFO hoax: meeting between the expert and the hoaxer
www.rtl.be...

　
VIDEOS:

July 26, 2011
Mea Culpa - author of the fake UFO photo of Petit Rechain.
www.rtl.be...

July 26, 2011
The Mystery of a UFO – 20 years After
www.rtl.be...

July 26, 2011
Mea Culpa - author of the fake UFO photo of Petit Rechain.
www.rtl.be...

July 26, 2011
UFOs were seen everywhere in Belgium 20 years ago.
www.rtl.be...

July 27, 2011
UFO hoax confession: a physicist does not believe in cheating.
www.rtl.be...

July 27, 2011
UFO hoax: the expert does not believe
www.rtl.be...

July 27, 2011
UFO hoax confession: a physicist does not believe in cheating.
www.rtl.be...

July 27, 2011 – 16 minutes feature
UFOs - RTL + attempts to answer all your questions with specialists.
www.rtl.be...

Other videos from RTL archives about Belgium UFO Wave
November 29, 2009
UFO Wave in Belgium - 20 years ago
www.rtl.be...

November 29, 2009
UFOs – UFO wave created turmoil in 20 years ago
www.rtl.be...

November 29, 2009
UFOs in Belgium - wave of excitement 20 years ago
www.rtl.be...

Best Wishes

What did P say, it only took a couple of hours to make, then they 'strung it up' and photographed it. ??

Obviously all the witnesses then were on the same wavelength as P, except for three lights, not four in the shape.

No wonder why NASA got puzzled..."hey Dwayne, is there three lights or four in that there pic?"

Originally posted by Kandinsky
reply to post by spacevisitor

 

Hiya Space. I've read the translation of the Meesen article you linked. If the image is demonstrated to be a fake, Monsieur Meesen will feel the cold sweat of embarrassment.

The image isn't fake, the UFO in the image is.

Harte

Daggumit!

Here is another one.



Why are there so many hoaxsters in this friggin' world?

Confessionsof a UFO Hoaxer

Apparently there's still discussion around here as of how he hoaxed it. Well, he took some styrofoam, cut a triangle out of it, fitted 4 lightbulbs in it, hung it on his ceiling, spun it around and took a picture. That's it When the joke got to far he decided to destroy his little creation, because it had gone to far and he felt there was no way out of it at the time.

Originally posted by smurfy
What did P say, it only took a couple of hours to make, then they 'strung it up' and photographed it. ??

Obviously all the witnesses then were on the same wavelength as P, except for three lights, not four in the shape.

No wonder why NASA got puzzled..."hey Dwayne, is there three lights or four in that there pic?"

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/cf190f6520d1.jpg[/atsimg]
At least Picard thinks so.

Originally posted by Staafke
Apparently there's still discussion around here as of how he hoaxed it. Well, he took some styrofoam, cut a triangle out of it, fitted 4 lightbulbs in it, hung it on his ceiling, spun it around and took a picture. That's it

Hi Staafke , can you provide the link to that article wherein he said that because I read all over the place only this, and nothing about the ceiling and 4 fitted lightbulbs.

"You can do a lot with a little, we managed to trick everyone with a piece of polystyrene," said one of the forgers, identified only as Patrick, who says he pulled it off at the age of 18 with some colleagues.

"We made the model with polystyrene, we painted it and then we started sticking things to it, then we suspended it in the air ... then we took the photo,"

www.artdaily.org...

Originally posted by Staafke
When the joke got to far he decided to destroy his little creation, because it had gone to far and he felt there was no way out of it at the time.

How convenient that he destroyed his little creation is it not?

But that doesn’t have to be a problem, because if it was that easy to make he must be able to make a new model and picture again in my opinion.

reply to post by spacevisitor

Tons of them but all in Dutch of course. And why would he recreate it? You can do it by yourself, duh. He destroyed it because he was being asked to come to a military base for questioning. Afraid his house would be searched and all.

Originally posted by Staafke
reply to post by spacevisitor

 

Tons of them but all in Dutch of course.

That doesn’t matter to me, so please provide me the link?

Originally posted by Staafke
And why would he recreate it?

To proof what he claimed.

Originally posted by Staafke
You can do it by yourself, duh.

No I cannot because I do not know how he did it.

Originally posted by Staafke
He destroyed it because he was being asked to come to a military base for questioning. Afraid his house would be searched and all.

Or because he cannot backup his claim don’t you think because he just made it all up for some reason.

Don't you think that that is also a real possibility?

reply to post by spacevisitor

You want links? Here they come:

www.nieuws.be...
www.clint.be...
www.nieuwsblad.be...
www.nieuwsblad.be...
www.2news.be...
www.standaard.be...
www.nieuws.be...
vtm.be...
www.nieuwsblog.be...
www.medinews.be...

Cheers.

reply to post by spacevisitor


thansk sv... also check out the following...

www.rtl.be...

Supercherie ovni: l'expert n'y croit pas

L'aveu de supercherie d'un habitant de la région de Verviers, à propos de cette photo d'ovni qui défiait les experts depuis maintenant 20 ans a été un choc pour l'un d'entre eux, un physicien de l'UCL, en découvrant sur RTL hier que la photo était un faux, n'a pas hesité à se rendre chez l'auteur du cliché. Ce scientifique veut pas croire au trucage malgré les explications. Une rencontre signée Samuel Ledoux et Julien Raway.

translation....

UFO hoax: the expert does not believe

The admission of deception of an inhabitant of the region of Verviers, about this photo of a UFO that defied the experts for 20 years was a shock to one of them, a physicist at the UCL , discovering on RTL yesterday that the photo was a fake, did not hesitate to get in contact the photographer. This scientist does not believe in cheating despite the explanations. A meeting and signed Samuel Julien Ledoux Raway.

i wonder why...

but in any case, i haven't seen any pix of said model from other angles...



pictures or negatives(?)

Originally posted by mcrom901

UFO hoax: the expert does not believe

The admission of deception of an inhabitant of the region of Verviers, about this photo of a UFO that defied the experts for 20 years was a shock to one of them, a physicist at the UCL , discovering on RTL yesterday that the photo was a fake, did not hesitate to get in contact the photographer. This scientist does not believe in cheating despite the explanations. A meeting and signed Samuel Julien Ledoux Raway.

i wonder why...

Hi buddy, it is always a pleasure to see your posts.

Thanks for translating that part,
I asked yesterday an acquaintance by mail if she could translate what was said on that last 16 minute video, so I hope she has the time to do it and receive her answer soon.

Originally posted by uforadio
Anyway, RTL has added another video today - 16 minute feature about the whole story. Guests in the studio were Auguste Meessen and Pierre Magarain.
www.rtl.be...

If anyone can paraphrase (from French) what was said on that last 16 minute video that would be great.

Originally posted by mcrom901
but in any case, i haven't seen any pix of said model from other angles...



pictures or negatives(?)

I still do not believe his claim, and because he said it was so easy to do he must first show us all and especially those experts how he did it, how he made the model and how he took the photo.
That surely must be no problem for him/them as said here.

"We made the model with polystyrene, we painted it and then we started sticking things to it, then we suspended it in the air ... then we took the photo,"

www.artdaily.org...

Here are two pictures I found on Leslie Keans site.

In this one she shows holding the actual original Petit Rechain slide in her hand.

www.facebook.com...#!/media/set/?set=a.153338318057247.31358.101205036603909

For some reason the link doesnt work so I post the photo.



In this one is a picture of the actual original slide of the Petit Rechain photo, taken on April 4, 1990.

www.facebook.com...#!/media/set/?set=a.101473639910382.1116.101205036603909

For some reason the link doesnt work so I post the photo.

reply to post by spacevisitor
I agree the guy would be very helpful if he tried to repeat the image or walked us through how he did it. It's not much to ask either.

At the same time, I can't think of any reasonable explanation for why he would lie about faking it.

Originally posted by Kandinsky
reply to post by spacevisitor

 

I agree the guy would be very helpful if he tried to repeat the image or walked us through how he did it. It's not much to ask either.

At the same time, I can't think of any reasonable explanation for why he would lie about faking it.

Hi Kandinsky, the only explanation I still keep in the back of my mind is that wild guess in my first post.
But what disturbed me the most is that if he really did what he said he did, [but he must proof that first] how it is possible, that all those experts were not able with all their expertise and equipment they had to their disposal to see that it was a fake.
Because how can we still trust the conclusion then about so many other UFO photos that were examined due the same kind of techniques and equipment true the years and concluded to be a fake or genuine?

reply to post by spacevisitor
I think that because the image contained an object, it was as open to analysis whether it was a ceiling tile or a flying object.

It reminds me of all the fuss about the Gulf Breeze images and Bruce Maccabbee; those images were analysed to death too, but Ed Walters had used a model.

That means the experts aren't wrong in their analysis, but wrong in interpretation due to an underlying suspicion/expectation that the object was huge and distant...rather than small and close-up.

The guy really ought to demonstrate how he faked it, but it has no impact in my mind on the other aspects of the Belgian flap.

Originally posted by Kandinsky
reply to post by spacevisitor

 

I think that because the image contained an object, it was as open to analysis whether it was a ceiling tile or a flying object.

It reminds me of all the fuss about the Gulf Breeze images and Bruce Maccabbee; those images were analysed to death too, but Ed Walters had used a model.

It was claimed by Robert Menzer who was the new resident of Ed Walters former home that he found coincidently a model of a UFO [that UFO from the pictures] which Ed Walters is supposed to had left behind in his old home.

www.ufocasebook.com...

Do you find that not very suspicious?
Could Ed Walters have indeed been really so stupid that he would leave especially that model behind when he would have made it and used for creating a hoax?
I have very strong doubts about that.

Here is an interesting video of Boyd Bushman about the Gulf Breeze saucers.

Geüpload door DHMIII op 21 jan 2007
Boyd Bushman gives his theory of ufo's as he demonstrates the effects of electromagnetic levitation.

The only thing I know for shore is that TPTB regarding the UFO phenomenon have the power, the people, the money, the possibilities and all the time in the world to change a possible real UFO case eventually into a hoax or make it look as that something else has happened.
It happened in my opinion by so many cases.

Originally posted by Kandinsky
The guy really ought to demonstrate how he faked it, but it has no impact in my mind on the other aspects of the Belgian flap.

The same counts for me.

This video is translated so far:
www.wat.tv...

On the same note, based on my request, user "chikane" from Paracast forum has just finished translation of the 16 minute RTL video that I mentioned in my previous post. Guests in the studio were Auguste Meessen and Pierre Magarain.

Video is available here:
www.rtl.be...

Translation source (credits goes to chikane):
www.theparacast.com...

J is the journalist, AM is August Meessen (on the right) and P.M is Pierre Magain (on the left)

J : for 20 years some has believed that we had been visited by ETs while in fact it was hoax with a picture of a model. Nonetheless, the UFOs remain unidentified objects that still beg an explanation. To talk about it we receive PM, you are astrophysicist and professor at the ULG, next to you AM, hello, you are physicist and emeritus professor at the UCL. [to AM] This picture, you have dedicated part of your life, today you seem to be skeptical faced with the confession of this person.

AM: I'm not skeptical, I want to understand. So when I got this news I went there to ask him how he had done. And this is a technical problem and that interests me. That the picture is a hoax is secondary and we have to relativize, because a "tree shouldn't mask the forest" and the "forest" is the ufo phenomenon.

J: but this picture, still, I was looking in the news coverage we diffused in the 19 PM journal , you were really asking some explanations to this person, you said you didn't understand some technical details and that for you it couldn't be possible that it was a hoax.

AM : I'm going to tell you immediately what the problem is. you see the picture...presents...you have big lights, and the witness says he used a frigolite model with 4 small lamps from a small torch and how can this make these effects? you see it from the object[showing the 1stpicture]...in the blue sensible layer [showing the 2nd blue picture], and you see, everyone who studied the picture found the same effects. So there's here a technical problem. I continue my investigation, I found another witness. There were only two people to be aware. I found the other witness, I continue my investigation and there may be a track that may explain and that may be done further in time.

J: PM, you, this picture, did you believe at a moment that it was genuine?

PM: when the picture was published, with a colleague of the observatory, I analyzed it, and I noticed at once that there were some incoherences between the picture and the testimony

J : which incoherences?

PM: for instance the witness describes the lights as points whereas when we look at the size of picture on the film roll and when we listen to his description of the size of the object, it's clear that each light had the minimum size of the full moon. So if you have an object with the size of the full moon you don't say that it's a point. Moreover, the two witnesses had slightly contradictory versions on the departure of the object. One was saying that the object has disappeared suddenly, the other that it went by slowly. So there were some incoherences between the testimonies that made us already suspect that it was a hoax.

J: AM, the documents in question had also been analyzed by the NASA, it went very far, what did the NASA think about it?

AM: for myself, I don't know anything about the NASA, but there are 4 or 5 photography experts that examined it. It's true that my colleague [referring to PM] made a trial to reproduce something similar, others also, but each time we could see very quickly that it was a fake but not for the original. So now for the problem you raised, I know now that there were small lamps which made him speaks of luminous points and that it was photographed, now I know, at 1,5 m of distance.

J: So you have the technical details that you needed.

AM: I must search as for the ufo phenomenon, because if there's an enigma we must try to resolve it.

J: PM, the NASA leaned over the phenomenon? what were their conclusions?

PM: I'm not aware of an official extensive analysis by the NASA, it was a hearsay. My staff, who is in astrophysics and image treatment, we analyzed this picture without the original but nonetheless with a copy. We confronted it to the testimony. I think the main error that was made by many labs who analyzed the picture is that they looked at the picture outside its context. We can't, on the solely basis of a picture, unless it is an evident hoax, determine if it is a hoax, in taking it outside of the context in which it was captured. We must compare it with the testimony of the photographer, with the testimony of his girlfriend, and that's here that on one part we saw it was very easy to reproduce the object with a model, so we could not exclude the idea of a hoax and on another part we noticed some incoherences. It was not a document that could be considered as genuine.

J [reading the telespectator question]: the picture may be a hoax, it remains that in the early 90's, a lot of witnesses in whom were police and military officers witness these events. The belgium air army observered on their radar screens one of the luminous points accelerate vertically abruptly at a speed that no human could withstand. Until now, no explanation could have been brought forward. [To AM] the observations at the time, AM, what were there giving ? Military people did indeed see phenomena that they weren't able to explain.

AM : it's less important, what is important is that there have been observations the area of Benne [not sure of the name] which I investigated, there were very serious witnesses and all that is coherent. This a first point, the second point is now the air force intervention with two F16. we found through this, because I had the occasion to recover the informations from the three ground-based radars, one national, the 2 others military ones, the recordings of the F16s, and I analyzed all that. And I discovered a meteorological phenomenon which is rare, that the radar operators didn't know about, and finally after a lot of research, been able to explain what happened for the F16s.

J : so what was the explanation, briefly and clearly because everybody don't have your background

AM : there was a meteorological phenomenon and explaining this with the high performance of the F16s radars was troublesome, but during this intervention there was another observation detected simutaneously by the 2 military radars and this one has not been explained. I'm also sure that the ufos of the belgium wave were difficultly detected on radars, sometimes it works and sometimes not.

PM : to be completly clear I want to say first that in the 1st book of the SOBEPS, following an analysis done by AM, the SOBEPS had concluded that an object had been observed which had extraordinary accelerations that couldn't be withstand by any human. But in a second time, followings some reanalysis, the intervention of military experts, we understood that the radars had detected an atmospheric phenomenon, that there were no accelerations, it was air masses of different humidity rates that reflected the waves and gave the impression that it was an object but in fact the radars didn't detect any objects, truly speaking.

J: most of the time there's an explanation from this sort, in how many cases is it possible to conclude it is a meteorological phenomenon.

PM : we have a lot of observations, testimonies, the large majority of them, around 95% can be explained, there remains a small proportion of cases that can't be explained and most of the time they can't be explained because the observations are so vague that it could be everything. Each case that has been thoroughly examined by an expert, with a skeptical touch, a critical mindset, has finally been explained.

here the discussion leaves the case ot speak about more general things in ufology.

---end of paste---

Best Wishes