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

The jet interceptors were able to get missile locks on the craft at various times, but the craft would somehow jump off missile lock and take dramatic, evasive maneuvers changing speeds from approximately 170 mph to 1100 mph almost instantaneously and changing altitudes as dramatically.

Do we have confirmation that these change were physically real and confirmed by direct professional observation, or were these analysis from radar?

I think the most likely hypothesis is that it was a high performance US or Soviet surveillance aircraft with good active ECM. Around that time the US, and likely USSR, were developing ECMs which could rebroadcast back modified incoming signals to spoof radar.

So the craft may not be physically changing speed and altitude as fast as the radar signal would naively suggest.

Operations by CIA or USSR would not necessarily be coordinated with NATO.

reply to post by Imtor


You may have something there, IMO.

I once had a purple plasma glowing "boomarang" fly directly overhead. It was completely self illuminated, definite boomarang/V shape. It took up my entire field of view when directly overhead, and cruised off into the distance.

I want to say a few months later my wife and I got up early to watch the ISS fly over and wouldn't you know it, I step in to refill my coffee and when I went back outside my wife was in a bit of shock. She was looking in the dark morning sky trying to determine what direction the ISS would be approaching from and she said what she thought was a group of stars suddenly moved in a gliding fashion, it stopped bent down, tilted back up and glided off into the distance. They were 3 "star lights" in a triangle and held that formation the whole time.

Later that morning after the ISS fly over I stayed out hoping to see it and sure enough I saw our friendly neighborhood boomarang flying over downtown Sacramento off a ways, completely self illuminated in a dull whitish glow. I can't help but think that maybe these two were one and the same, as well as the boomarang that flew over my head months prior.

For those who are still interested in this claimed hoax by Patrick Marechal (PM), I saw that Leslie Kean posted this information regarding that photo on her facebook page.

For those who have been posting about the Belgian photo, here’s the current situation: the photographer Patrick Marechal (PM) says he hoaxed it by making a Styrofoam model. One friend of his from the factory has been interviewed by one investigator, who stated that he helped make the model. He was not present when the picture was taken. This corroborating witness is the only evidence PM has produced to back up his claim of a hoax.
Working 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? The other scientists who analyzed the Petit Rechain photo need to be approached for a new look at the picture. And other analysts who have never seen it before could provide additional insights.

For now, we have to operate under the assumption that the photo was faked. However, this is not a simple situation, and there are still unanswered questions. Greater proof is needed. Patrick Marechal is a liar – either then or now – so his evidence must be discarded. But this does not impact all the hundreds of sightings that were reported during the Belgian wave, and this possible hoax must not be used to undermine the strength of the Belgian wave as an historic, well-documented event.

She made a very strong point by this in my opinion.

Patrick Marechal is a liar – either then or now – so his evidence must be discarded.

Here is the link to the whole discussion.

www.facebook.com...

reply to post by IsaacKoi


I once read that there was a man who faked the exact picture. Sorry I cant remember where I saw it. Might have been a documentary too...
They said that the first one is real and that the second one was faked although it looked pretty similar.
It WAS a documentary! The hoaxer even showed how he faked it.

Could it be that the article is about the known faked picture?

What I'm about to say is not something I take lightly, and I've never said anything about it outside of a very close circle of friends and family.

I know for certain that 'triangle' objects (craft, UFOs, vessels, whatever you want to call them) exists, because I have seen one myself.

In 2007 I saw almost exactly what is depicted in the 'Belgian triangle' photograph. The only difference being that there was not a 'center' light in the middle of the triangle. Three bright orange lights, no motion or movement, no sound that I could hear. It 'felt' massive, and appeared to be several thousand feet in the air - although judging distance and scale of an unknown object, at night, with no reference point is essentially impossible.

I'm familiar with many types of aircraft, and I have lived near an Air Force base for much of my life - what I saw was absolutely unlike anything I have seen in the years before or since then.

I'm a person that holds logic, rationality and science in the highest regard. Even though I had always believed in the possibility of UFOs, I wouldn't really believe someone if they told me a story like this before I had my encounter, so I don't expect any of you to believe me. But that doesn't change what I saw, and what I saw changed my entire life. I don't claim to know if it was man made, extraterrestrial, or some combination of the two. Either way, the implications are immense.

It's funny, I discovered ATS because I was looking for answers about my experience, and here I am finally, nearly five years later, posting something about it. I've always told myself that someday I would put together a detailed thread about my sighting - but it has yet to happen. Ironically, before my sighting I used to think that if I ever saw a UFO I would tell everyone I could about it - but when I actually saw one, I didn't tell anyone for months.

I think anyone else who's experienced something similar will understand.

If this could help after watching a ufo traingle claim did a google earth search and came-up some form of evident that could in the least prove triangle craft could exist, location eupen, belgium? eupen, belgium




In the tree growth to the south, is a space in the trees, if you happen to have google earth installed on your system it clear and you can see what looks like a landing sight or a underground doorway

Originally posted by TrixXxtaR
MSM Debunking? Get out of here...

I agree something odd here why come out now?

Originally posted by intptr www.abovetopsecret.com...
I am old enough to remember the overwhelming evidence that came out. Not just pics but many witnesses including police, Radar operators, fighter pilots, and that pic (the fuzzy one). Now a days all good cases have been "debunked" by something as simple like you say as another photo. Gets confusing, huh? I hate it when that happens. The Belgian Wave is a good case study and there are a lot of Google hits to look thru.

Indeed.

reply to post by intrptr

I have a report in front of me written by Major General Wilfred De Brouwer (Ret.). When the Belgian "flap" happened he was the Head of Operations of the Belgian Air Staff. There were ~2000 reported cases during the flap. 200 of those cases lasted more than 5 minutes! The Air Force, with 300 engineers, 100 controllers, several radar stations, 500 pilots, 300 aircraft - including helicopters - and thousands of technicians, admitted that it could not find the answer. However, as De Brouwer reports

a few unqualified debunkers claim to have found the answer [that it was helicopters.] Their real objective is to misinform people, create confusion and ridicule UAP sightings. Some witnesses who made reports in 1989 are still hounded and discredited to this day. No wonder that several witnesses didn't reveal their name; some didn't even take the risk of reporting their sightings....

*snip*

...we are dealing with a very important question: Is our airspace being violated by unknown intruders? False claims and disinformation by people trying to ridicule the UAP phenomenon are made use of by those who refuse to accept that some sightings remain unexplainable and could possibly be some kind of unknown technology."

Chapter by De Brouwer from Leslie Kean's UFOs: Generals, Pilots and Government Officials Go On the Record

Interesting comments from a person very well placed to make them. My point is that one photograph barely scratches the surface of this important case. We should also be careful how ready we are to accept photographic evidence AND claims that it is fake. Perhaps more importantly, we should be careful not to buy-in to how important that single item of evidence is when the weight of other evidence is so huge. Let's not get too confused here.

So...now I'm confused too. WHICH pic is the "confirmed" fake?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by The GUT
So...now I'm confused too. WHICH pic is the "confirmed" fake?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Unfortunately my thread has been closed...


I will post my findings on this thread and see what happens in a little while.

Ok here's what I posted on the thread that was closed.

This is a quote from wikipedia:

The main picture of the Belgian UFO Wave is the Petit-Rechain picture. For 20 years, the ufological organisation Société Belge d'Etudes des Phénomènes Spatiaux (SOBEPS) claimed that this picture was genuine, and to this day it remains so. On 26 July 2011, in an interview for RTL, a Belgian TV channel, a man who took a different picture (seen below), Patrick M. confessed that his was a hoax

So a "different" picture from the petit-Rechain picture was the one conffessed to be a hoax.
And if wikipedia is correct, the petit-rechain picture remains genuine to this day.

See the "(seen below)" on the wikipedia quote?

Well below that section there is this picture and no other images on the wikipedia page.



Don't believe me? Check out the wiki page yourself.
en.wikipedia.org...


Anyways, try searching "petit-ranchain ufo photo" into google. Mostly these pictures will appear.



But according to wikipedia:

"The main picture of the Belgian UFO Wave is the Petit-Rechain picture. For 20 years, the ufological organisation Société Belge d'Etudes des Phénomènes Spatiaux (SOBEPS) claimed that this picture was genuine, and to this day it remains so. On 26 July 2011, in an interview for RTL, a Belgian TV channel, a man who took a different picture (seen below), Patrick M. confessed that his was a hoax."

So is wikipedia just wrong or what? Because according to that quote, the petit-ranchain picture, the one shown in the OP is genuine to this day. The other picture, (notice the bold 'a different picture') was the one confirmed a hoax.

What is going on? I am very confused.

Originally posted by thesearchfortruth
This is a quote from wikipedia:

I have removed the nonsensical "and to this day it remains so" and the confusing reference to another photo. Patrick Ferryn, the president of COBEPS has acknowledged that the Petit Rechain case is finally solved. He has confirmed the identity of Patrick Maréchal, whom he knew since 1990.
www.rtl.be...

Originally posted by The GUT
So...now I'm confused too. WHICH pic is the "confirmed" fake?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

This thread relates to the revelation/claim of a hoax in relation to the photo embedded below (i.e. the Petit Rechain photo):
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/1e0bb3366d36.jpg[/atsimg]

Originally posted by thesearchfortruth
Ok here's what I posted on the thread that was closed.

This is a quote from wikipedia:

The main picture of the Belgian UFO Wave is the Petit-Rechain picture. For 20 years, the ufological organisation Société Belge d'Etudes des Phénomènes Spatiaux (SOBEPS) claimed that this picture was genuine, and to this day it remains so. On 26 July 2011, in an interview for RTL, a Belgian TV channel, a man who took a different picture (seen below), Patrick M. confessed that his was a hoax

So a "different" picture from the petit-Rechain picture was the one conffessed to be a hoax.
And if wikipedia is correct, the petit-rechain picture remains genuine to this day.

The wikipedia entry in relation to the Petit-Rechain picture is a mess, containing various unreferenced statements and errors.

Basically, the wikipedia is about as reliable as most of the material written about UFOs that appears on the Internet (and, for that matter, in books) i.e. not reliable at all.

Rather than rely on the wikipedia entry as to which photo "Patrick M." (Patrick Maréchal) confessed hoaxing, my OP gave a link to a relevant video and press report. Just to confirm the position, I'll give:

(1) A link to the website of the hoaxer, which features numerous photos of him holding the photo embedded above:
patrick-marechal.net...

(2) a few additional videos of Patrick Maréchal (found by doing a Google search on "Patrick Maréchal") discussing his hoax below:





If a summary on wikipedia doesn't bother giving a reference that you can check, I'd suggest immediately considering it suspect.

reply to post by IsaacKoi
Thank you, Isaac. If you double-checked I'm pretty sure you got it right'

A shout-out to thesearchfortruth, however, for questioning suspect information.

My personal opinion: Tunable, spoofed radar returns combined with stealth craft and/or holographic tech for obvious future strategic use. I jus' wanna see a real pic of one of our triangles.

reply to post by IsaacKoi


Ok thanks for clearing that up isaac...

Thanks for clearing that up Isaac.

Originally posted by The GUT
My personal opinion: Tunable, spoofed radar returns combined with stealth craft and/or holographic tech for obvious future strategic use. I jus' wanna see a real pic of one of our triangles.

This is entirely possible.

I don't rule out other explanations but some of the sightings were by senior military staff. If some of the sightings were not holograms, then I do suspect they may not have been "ours". I say this because of the size and how slowly some of the "craft" moved.

Originally posted by The GUT
My personal opinion: Tunable, spoofed radar returns combined with stealth craft and/or holographic tech for obvious future strategic use. I jus' wanna see a real pic of one of our triangles.

Originally posted by pimander
This is entirely possible.

I don't rule out other explanations but some of the sightings were by senior military staff. If some of the sightings were not holograms, then I do suspect they may not have been "ours". I say this because of the size and how slowly some of the "craft" moved.

In looking for an online copy (pdf) of the NIDS Investigations of the Flying Triangle Enigma, I came across the following PDF which is rather interesting reading so far and presents some fascinating counterpoints to the "they're ours" theory…and challenges some of the NIDS findings. (NIDS--very suspect but always a fascinating subject and it's former players are infamous in the darker side of Ufology.)

The author of the following work doesn't outright dismiss the possibility that they are military, but he does ask some good questions that he attempts to answer. He especially makes a good case against any kind of Blimp...if his math is correct. You'll have to help me on that math part, pimander!

Observations of apparent Exotic Propulsion technologies from Hectometer sized Deltoid Aerial Craft at low altitude
Edward Halerewicz, Jr.∗ Journal of Advanced Propulsion Methods
November 7, 2004

Somewhere betwixt myth and mystery lies the answer…and I bet it's gonna totally freak us out!

It is interesting that you touch on the NIDS thing. With Aviary contacts I completely understand what you hint at. If only it was just black and white.

reply to post by The GUT

The internal field driving mechanism is found by a reverse analysis of the easily identifable and often reported optical effects generated by acrobatic-like maneuvering of the hectometer deltoid craft, primarily atmospheric ionization. It is also found that the crafts propulsion system may be regarded as unconventional in that the `driving' mechanisms of the craft appear to be self contained rather than requiring violent interactions with the outer environment.

ufos.homestead.com...

One of the most vivid memories from my own encounter with a non-conventional craft was the effect on the atmosphere that I now know to be related to EM fields and/or air ionisation. There was though certainly effects on the external environment but as the author says, not of a violent nature.

The authors comments about the "coincidences" involving Ed Fouche's numbers are interesting.

We can sum up Mr. Fouche's claims as incorrect bad science, but interesting in that these numbers do not seem to be conjured up arbitrarily but seem to be tied to real physical constants, somehow.
*snip*
The data revealed by Mr. Fouche is easy to reject by textbook reasoning, yet on the other hand there is something unsettling about the numbers as if though they were pieces of a larger picture.

ufos.homestead.com...

Fascinating paper, especially for researchers looking for clues about alternative propulsion. Thanks for sharing with the members.

Just because this one picture is claimed to be a hoax doesn't take anything away from the Belgian Wave sightings which is still a very mysterious and unexplained occurrence.

The photo never matched the graphic put together from witness accounts so it
was a feeble attempt at that time to discredit the event by showing something
different.

The Triangle is mentioned is an account from newspapers published
in "Man Made UFOs" sighted in the 1940s if I recall the book properly.

In any event the identification of a ship close up is quite fortunate.
Only Oval, flat disk, wing and triangle shape have the best close up sightings that I consider.