reply to post by mysteryskeptic
I dont think we have heard the last about these photographs. I read initially that this 'Patrick M' had sour grapes because he had sold the
copyright to the photographs and was no-longer receiving any money for them, so this was his attempt to de-value them for the current owner. Here is
part of an email from the writer Gildas Bourdais on the subject (and, to date, Patrick M has been unable or unwilling to replicate his hoax)
>Guy Mossay is the professional photographer to whom Patrick M.
>gave the licence to exploit the copyright.
>BTW, if Patrick M. is telling the truth today, he let Mossay
>sell the his fake picture copyright on his behalf for over 21
>years and is therefore he is a thief. My publisher bought it in
>1997, and it was rather expensive. If he is lying now, he is
>also dishonest, of course. So, I suggest caution.
>He says today that he is going to make a model and photograph it
>again. Let's see if he can. (update- as of August 2012, he hasnt)
>Physicist Auguste Meessen, who managed to find him, has debated
>with him for two hours. He has stressed special properties of
>the picture. Among them, the peculiar aspects of the lights, and
>the decomposition in three basic colours, blue, red and green,
>which showed no image in the red component. An ordinary white
>light should have given one.
>However, in a private letter that he sent me today, Auguste
>Meessen seems to admit that Patrick, together with a friend, may
>have made the model, and picture. I have just asked him to
>confirm that. But, for the moment, Patrick M. has given no proof
>of his claim: not even a picture of his model, which he dids not