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

There seem to appear some cracks in my opinion regarding the Petit-Rechain UFO in the sense that I do not rule completely out anymore that it could be indeed a faked image and here is why.

First I must say that I am absolutely no expert or even an amateur of this kind of photographic things, so it is just my personal view on it all.

In all the testimonies from witnesses who said that they saw a so called triangular craft described the lights on the craft as follows.

Three spotlights beaming down and a red flashing light in the center.

Three very strong spotlights and a flashing red central light,

Three lights in a triangular position and a red rotating light in the middle that was positioned lower than the belly of the craft.

Three other lights appeared at the underside of the craft, in a triangular form with a central pulsing light.

Three bright lights and a pulsating red light.

This is witness testimony of the famous Petit-Rechain photo.
a lady noticed the spotlights of a craft hovering above her home. She alerted her partner, who took two photographs, of which one which became the famous Petit-Rechain photo with a manual exposure time of one to two seconds.

Too bad none of them said anything about the shape of the light source, but all the drawings made of them show if I am correct circular lights, which would be quite logical to me.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a3a0aed91d36.jpg[/atsimg]

After watching very closely to the light sources in this image of the original slide



I noticed the quite strange shapes of the light sources in the triangular position.
They are not circular as I expected, but look more like a sausage [I have no better word for it] in even three different shapes.

Here it is even better to see.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/73a8f3540ef9.jpg[/atsimg]

I have only images of two of the light sources.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/0acdfcad6c26.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a35de283a6c5.jpg[/atsimg]

The shape of the light around those sources “could” be caused by the shape of a rugged surface, such as polystyrene mostly is.

This is the centre light.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/58f60fd6c05b.jpg[/atsimg]

www.meessen.net...

These thoughts are no proof whatsoever of course but I did not notice that before and did not even look at it before until I saw Leslie Keans image of the original slide.

Any thoughts?

reply to post by uforadio

Each case that has been thoroughly examined by an expert, with a skeptical touch, a critical mindset, has finally been explained.

These guys undermine their own credibility in the same way the total believers do. As fast as believers are insisting that UFOs are alien spaceships, some of the scientists are claiming 'each case' has been explained. Neither are right.

Every official study (known) that has had the involvement of scientists interpreting the sightings by other scientists (Trombaugh, Kelly etc) has been unable to conclude anything other than 'unknown,'

reply to post by spacevisitor


The shape of the lights is caused by over exposure and movement. The camera that took the picture was obviously set to have a long exposure time, and that is evident by looking at the ghosting around the lights.

The craft must have moved slightly, and this caused the lights to streak in the exposure, which caused the odd shapes of the lights. The over exposure probably also caused the lights to look brighter than they actually are.

Originally posted by gift0fpr0phecy
reply to post by spacevisitor

 

The shape of the lights is caused by over exposure and movement. The camera that took the picture was obviously set to have a long exposure time, and that is evident by looking at the ghosting around the lights.

The craft must have moved slightly, and this caused the lights to streak in the exposure, which caused the odd shapes of the lights. The over exposure probably also caused the lights to look brighter than they actually are.

You are right that the camera was set to have a long exposure time, it was as claimed one to two seconds.
But IF the three light sources where in fact circular and because the craft seem to move slowly on it “axis” which looks to me as being the centre light because that stays circular, then I would nevertheless expect three identical shapes.

I think it's a real shame the hoaxer has come forward and admitted to it after all these years, only because now even more doubt will be cast on many more photos of U.F.O's that were thought to be the real thing!

The hoaxer has nothing but money and fame in mind, let's face it, you put the letters UFO on any product, sales will increase because people are interested, this guy has a story abot hoaxing.

This picture was only part of the whole Belgian incident, a miniscule part at that. Facts remain with this case: Big triangle roaming about Belgian airspace, witnesses see it, radar sees it and some guy cashes in on it.

Somebody rained on everybody's parade. And they are not liking it..........

Or shall I say pissed in their cherrios...

Sorry believers you are going to have to try extra hard now......Another chink in the armor for the ufo'ers.

Bad news never comes easy. It will pass

Leslie Kean made much of this apparently fake photo (calling it the holy grail or something).

Now that there appears to be good evidence that it is a fake, we see the believer's value of the photo change instantly. Since it no longer fits into the UFO religion, cognitive dissonance allows an immediate shift: "hey, it was never that good an image anyway!"

Will the apparently discredited photo analysis give enthusiasts even a moment's pause before they accept the next expert pronouncement?

UFO buffs give an inordinate amount of respect to anything that has the trappings of science. For instance Kean also gives great credence to the pretend science done by Richard Haines. Even a layperson can easily see the problems inherent in such work. And yet Haines is "highly respected".

At least he is right now.


Lance

Originally posted by liejunkie01
Somebody rained on everybody's parade. And they are not liking it..........

Or shall I say pissed in their cherrios...

Sorry believers you are going to have to try extra hard now......Another chink in the armor for the ufo'ers.

Bad news never comes easy. It will pass

, I'm devastated this has happened, that picture meant so much to me, boo-hoo-boo-hoo

reply to post by lancemoody
Steady on there Lance! Haines is one of the good guys and highly respected for his experience as well as the qualifications (genuine too!).

I recall you asked for raw images for the 2005 'sphere' article NARCAP posted and Ted didn't supply them...it bothered me a little at the time too.

ETA: as an afterthought, Haines was willing to accept the likelihood that the famous Valentich incident could have been a plane-ditch scenario and suggested a broader search of the sea-floor was worth attempting.

Hi Kandinsky!

I haven't circled back to this until now. I do want to write about it and show folks the truth.

I recently went through the drudgery of carefully reading one of Haines' reports on a UFO photo. By the way, I don't think his credentials (in psychology, if I recall correctly) have anything to analyzing photographs.

This was one from South America (I will get further details--writing from memory) that Leslie Kean made much of as an historic cooperation between a civilian governmental air authority and a UFO group.

The report was full of irrelevant detail. It contained the trappings of science without being actually scientific. For instance, it presents details of unrelated sightings on different dates many miles away as meaningful in some way. It also made much of Haines' pretense that the thing depicted in the photo might somehow disturb air traffic.

As someone who works with images and special effects for a living, I can tell you that my first guess upon looking at the image was that it might be a lens flare, lens reflection, or other camera anomaly. It looked very much like the kind of thing one often sees when a camera is pointed near a bright sun (as in the this image).

The fatal flaw is that Haines NEVER EVEN CONSIDERED A CAMERA ANOMALY! This is a ridiculous and non-trivial flaw. This shows that Haines is only serving his religion and has nothing to do with science. All of his rather silly discussion of the size and shape of the craft (he immediately called it a space ship, of course, even though the image is actually pretty amorphous and undefined, containing striations of color that strongly suggest an optical explanation) tells the story of a UFO zealot who is hiding behind the veneer of scientific inquiry.

I knew right after reading the report that this was yet another case of the emperor having no clothes. This is exactly like what we saw in the supposed "analysis" by some other expert in the Belgian photo (see how I got somewhat back on topic!). Unfortunately many people are easily fooled by anything that even smells slightly of science and there are plenty of people like Leslie Kean ready to take advantage of their laziness.

Best,

Lance

reply to post by lancemoody
I have a lot of respect for Haines and his credentials are a measure of his intelligence. His employment history is impressive, but doesn't extend to qualified expertise in image-analysis. At the same time, he does have a long history of analysing imagery and experience minus qualifications needn't rule out credibility.

'Camera anomalies' are usually the first port-of-call.

I bet you've already considered contacting him with your concerns and it's not a bad idea.

Here is a link for the report I was discussing above.

See for yourself.

The sad thing is that almost no one will bother and most will just accept the overstatements of UFO peddlers like the breathless Leslie Kean.

Kentaro Mori makes a good case for the image possibly being a reflection. But note that it doesn't even matter what it is. That Haines never even considered anything other than a space ship shows him and his organization for what they truly are.

Lance

reply to post by lancemoody
I wonder if he was able to analyse the raw files? In a couple of places, there's deductive reasoning being applied when EXIF data would have been a more obvious route. There's no mention of EXIF data in the report when even its absence should be remarkable.

I agree with the points about reflections also being overlooked. Several good-looking images have been found to be reflections just on this site alone. In one excellent thread, a 'saucer' was a rain drop on a car's back window. The CIFAE guys have attempted a broad investigation of the potential for the object to be a reflection. Unfortunately, they fall short of identifying make and model of vehicle. Also, they tend to rule out the idea of a reflection on the windshield by examining the interior of another model.

The circumstances of the images being taken were from a family of five on a day out sight-seeing. In my experience, this would generate a lot of clutter in the vehicle with bags and suchlike. In that sense, a reflective object needn't be part of the vehicle at all. It could be anything from a change of shoes to a textile handbag.

reply to post by spacevisitor


If the camera moved as well as the UFO, then it could give the results shown.

reply to post by spacevisitor
You are right not to dismiss this case.

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. Time will tell.

I haven't ruled out a Project Palladium-type tech because no pilots ever saw an object. They followed radar. According to Cashman, the object on radar executed manoeuvres that were superior to ours (speed, turns, acceleration etc) but still within the bounds of physics.

Whether a Next-Gen Palladium tech can spoof radar returns and demonstrate realistic flight-characteristics is beyond our 'need-to-know.'

This is why the Belgian Wave remains fascinating...many explanations and little certainty.

Indeed. There does seem to be a degree of certainty here though. Physicist, Scweicher was certain the radar returns were very real.

Professor Emile Scweicher analyzed the radar tapes and was asked if the radar returns could have been technical anomalies in the radar equipment. He stated publicly, I don’t think that you can explain it by saying that all radars made the same mistake; that’s highly unlikely. There are different types of radar. There are different types of antennae… And, also, the orientation of the target was different for the four radars. I’m going to be fired [flamed - edit?] by my colleagues. But, I think that extraterrestrial intelligence is very highly likely.
Source: www.cavinessreport.com...

He can be heard speaking for himself in this documentary (Part 2 at 4m20s.) Unfortunately the 2 parts overlap so if you wish to watch the whole documentary without repetition you will need to skip part of one. This is an old one but worth watching - especially if you're fed up with History Channel fair.


I may start a new thread on the incident soon. I have a feeling that some ATSers are too ready to prematurely assert that a case has been debunked..

Of course, of course. No case can ever die. If the most celebrated bit of evidence is proven to be a patent fraud then the enthusiasts just move on the less celebrated evidence.

Bring out the new experts so they can certify (just as they did the photo, you may have forgotten) whatever other evidence needs certification. Someone call Bruce Maccabee!

Fortunately stuff like Radar contact is notoriously subjective and unreliable. This is where the paranormal enthusiast is always forced to take refuge: among swirling tea leaves.

Lance

Originally posted by lancemoody
Fortunately stuff like Radar contact is notoriously subjective and unreliable. This is where the paranormal enthusiast is always forced to take refuge: among swirling tea leaves.

There are no tea leaves here. The radar tapes were analysed by a physicist who teaches at the Belgian Military Academy. It's not easy for tapes to be subjective.

If you want to ignore the facts then that's your business. Don't expect to have your opinion taken seriously if you just roll out trolling crap like that. Either engage with the evidence or stop wasting bandwidth.

Were they "analyzed" with same UFO-level precision as the now discredited photo? It was trumpeted in exactly the same way (or has all of that been now embarrassingly forgotten?).

The point is that when UFO enthusiasts claim that an analysis has confirmed that something is paranormal, you almost always count on the fact that they are talking out of their ass.

Lance

reply to post by lancemoody

Who said anything about paranormal? I was simply pointing out the FACT that the most important evidence regarding this case has not been debunked. It is disingenuous to pretend otherwise.

I agree that the picture had iconic status to the point of stupidity. The fact is that the picture has always been suspect due to the fact that it manifested 4 months after the incident. However, any serious researcher would look for more than that a picture.

How do you suggest that 3 separate radars made the same mistake at the same time? If you going to comment then engage with the evidence and act like evidence might be something that interests you.