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

Ok let's engage then. From the clip you reference, it is said that ONE of the radar tapes was analyzed. Not all three.

Then in a classic saucer leap of logic, the witnesses start speaking about all the radars being the same.

I see this kind of poor thinking all the time.

Best,

Lance

any updates?

In November 1990, ten Belgians had and told Reuters he saw a triangular object with three lights, flying slowly and silently. It was actually a Soviet satellite that disintegrated in the atmosphere.

Originally posted by lancemoody
Ok let's engage then. From the clip you reference, it is said that ONE of the radar tapes was analyzed. Not all three.

According to the information I have, three ground radars all registered the "object", including the NATO one at Semerzake. The radars on the two F16s locked onto the object several times and it was these tapes that were analysed. That's FIVE radars at least two of which were analysed by the military.

Triangles and other types of UFOs appeared over Belgium again on the night of March 30-31, 1990. National police again spotted a 3-light configuration flying in the sky and contacted the radar station at nearby Glons, Belgium. Glons acknowledged the radar target on their screens and contacted the NATO radar station at Semerzake who confirmed the same unknown target. Another radar station at Zaventem eventually tracked the UFO, as well. Two Belgian Air Force jet fighters were then scrambled at Beaurechain to chase down the craft and try to identify it since it was executing an unauthorized invasion of Belgian air space. Both pilots had the same radar return on their radar scopes at times but were unable to get a visual on the object or objects in the area at the time. 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. The jets eventually returned to base without incident and the radar tapes were analyzed by the Belgian Air Force’s Electronic War Center.
www.cavinessreport.com...

Maybe the police witnesses hallucinated the sighting of the object they reported to the radar station at Glons. Maybe the Air Traffic Controllers all hallucinated the return and it happened to guide fighters to a place where they also returned false radar readings and missile locks. The simpler explanation is that something was there.

I'm not saying I know what the "object" was. Whether the photograph is hoaxed is not especially relevant to the radar data as it was allegedly taken days later anyway. My point is that there was lots of unexplained activity prior to this alleged hoax. I'm keen to avoid throwing out the proverbial baby.

P.S. Thanks for engaging.

Here is what you said:

"The radar tapes were analysed by a physicist who teaches at the Belgian Military Academy."

The clip you link mentions that only ONE tape was analyzed.

Can we stick to this one point without using the standard believer tactic of talking about something else entirely when something they have said is shown to be in error?

Do you have further evidence that:

"The radar tapes were analysed by a physicist who teaches at the Belgian Military Academy."

Or do you concede that you are wrong. It is difficult to discuss cases like this for precisely this reason: believers assume facts not in evidence.

Lance

reply to post by lancemoody

As I had previously read, "the jets eventually returned to base without incident and the radar tapes were analyzed by the Belgian Air Force’s Electronic War Center", I made the assumption that he analysed all of the tapes. On second viewing, the video clip does say only one was analysed by Prof Scweicher. The report I had read previously did claim that he analysed the tapes.

That does not change the fact that I am trying to engage with you regarding the radar data, not, "talking about something else entirely." There is plenty of meat on the bones of this case, even if I am human and slipped up on the exact wording of the documentary. If you read the report I cite above, there is a case to answer and the multiple radar readings are an important part of it.

Thanks Pimander!

It is exactly these kinds of mistakes that, from a skeptic's perceptive, allow cases to become more than what they are.
I'll take a look at the report and comment further.

Just to be clear, is the report you refer to the one by Alan Caviness? I took a quick look and it seems to be an account by UFO believer without citation. Is that the report you wanted me read?

Alan Caviness seems to be a hard core true believer who sees alien faces in smoke and artifacts of photographs. Is he the final authority on this?


Lance

Originally posted by mcrom901
any updates?

Hi mcrom901, perhaps you find this interesting to know.

Leslie Kean is tonight 2am - 4am EST on Coast to Coast, UFOs on the Record
Date: 08-03-11
Host: George Noory
Guests: Leslie Kean

Investigative journalist Leslie Kean will discuss firsthand accounts of UFO encounters and official investigations including the 2006 UFO incursion at Chicago’s O’Hare airport, and accounts from top military generals and pilots-- some of whom actually attempted to shoot down UFOs.

www.coasttocoastam.com...

Originally posted by uforadio
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...

--- snip ---

Those are latest updates from user "chikane" from Paracast forum - translation on the source link below:
Source: www.theparacast.com...

reply to post by lancemoody

Apologies for the slow response. I didn't realise that you edited the post and added a question.

Caviness' report is OK if you just want a chronology of the incident.

SOBEPS had access to information supplied by the Belgian military. Most of the work is reported in Belgian so can be a difficult read using the Google translator function. I have previously read a better translation but cannot locate a copy on the web.

In contradiction with other pointed out UFO sightings, for the first time a radar contact has been positively observed, in correlation with different sensors of the Air Force (CRC, TCC, RAPCON, EBBE and F-16 radar), and this in the same area as visual observations. This has to be explained by the fact that the March 30-31 UFOs have been noticed at +/- 10000 feet altitude, whereas in the former cases there was always talk of visual contacts at very low altitude.
ROYAL BELGIAN AIR FORCE REPORT ON THE OBSERVATION OF UFOs DURING THE NIGHT OF MARCH 30-31, 1990

Prof. Auguste Meessen had the opportunity to analyse the radar data for SOBEPS. He concluded that some of the radar returns were due to meteorological phenomena. However, he also found data that defied a conventional explanation.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/343df22e5faa.gif[/atsimg]

The incident of the F-16 has allowed me, in fact, to find a trace that I can not explain a conventional manner. This is the linear trace in Figure 16 (above). The straight line is the trace of a UFO, detected by the two radars military ground during the flight of F-16 during the night of 30/31 March 1990. The lower trace shows part of the path followed by the first F-16. He had activated its IFF (identification friend or foe) and in principle the radar Semmerzake should retain its echoes, but the fighters are small and very agile. In turn, the radar lost track and substituted echoes from the second F-16. This explains the difference between the recorded points (I.375) and the continuous curve representing the trajectory of the first F-16 that Mr. Gilmard adopted (II.fig.10.4). The straight lines defined by the open circles appeared at the same time to Semmerzake. The closed circles are the excerpts from the reports I get listings at Glons. Spatiotemporal correspondence indicates that the two military radar detected the same "object".
Source (Google Translation): A. Meessen, Professor of Physics at UCL
home.nordnet.fr...&usg=ALkJrhjbcVXe6yePmjGf956RojR7D1jL9w

You may not agree with me on this but I still find the case interesting.

The fact of the matter is that it's totally irrelevant whether the photo is real or a hoax, the sightings in Belgium started way before this photo came into the public eye, it doesn't discredit the case in any way, shape or form quite simply because it didn't start the wave of UFO sightings and was never seen as concrete evidence of an actual UFO. Skeptics call every photo of an alleged UFO a fake and a hoax anyway, debunkers claim it's anything from a weather balloon, plane, weather phenomena, meteors to Russian satellites and spacecraft re-entering Earths orbit, in fact anything that's not extra-terrestrial in origin, usually contradicting each other as they do. Believers are adamant that photos are real and want proof that what the skeptics and debunkers are saying is true. The situation is that blurry photos can never be accepted as proof of alien craft and on the the other hand they can't be accepted as proof as some of the crap that debunkers make up or skeptics claim as a hoax because they say "I could do that on my computer so it can't be real". In my opinion so-called "photographic evidence" is weak because it generally shows something that can't be proved either way, witness testimonies from members of the public, highly respected people such as police officers and military personel provide a far better case than any blurry photo can.

I'm watching Secret Access (UFO special) on the history channel and they get into this photo too which they state it is not a fake. What gives?

Originally posted by Swills
I'm watching Secret Access (UFO special) on the history channel and they get into this photo too which they state it is not a fake. What gives?

My guess is it's a program made before the hoax claims. The photograph could well be a hoax but do we know that the claim is even true at this point?

For me the most important thing is that we don't buy into the idea that if that image was hoaxed then case closed. If that was all we had it would have been closed a long time ago. At the very least it seems likely that there were unknown craft in Belgian airspace during the flap - whether that picture has anything to do with it I wouldn't like to guess.

If it does turn out to be a definite hoax, which seems likely, then whoever analysed the image needs to review the methods they have used to analyse other images as the methods are clearly flawed. Whoever claimed the image was some holy grail needs to eat humble pie too if that turns out to be that case.

Sceptics say there is no background in the photograph and that there is no element which would allow the calculation of the object's size or distance from the camera.

... And?

Wim van Utrecht, a Belgian sceptic, has reproduced a copy of the photograph with devices.

Proves that someone can recreate this UFO picture. Does not prove that the picture was a fake/hoax. You can reproduce just about anything with enough time, resources, and talent. Consider the ghost army deployed during WWII.

A computer graphics simulation method[4] to reproduce the photograph was developed by a Belgian mathematician, Thierry Veyt at The University of Liège Laboratory of Astrophysics, wherein the apparent "shake" motion, that results in the lights of the craft appearing blurred or out of focus in the photograph contradicts eye-witness statements.

How does this contradict eye-witness statements? Also, it's a computer graphics simulation method he used. Key word, simulation method.

This, along with the anonymity of the photographer and fact that the image was not produced publicly until 4 months after the alleged event brings the authenticity of the image into question.[5]

Ummm, no it doesn't. Sometimes real evidence doesn't surface for years. Four months or so is a drop in the bucket. Maybe the guy didn't want to release it publically for fear of ridicule and did so anonymously months later after the heat had died down a little locally, who knows.

This is really poor debunking. It may be true that the photo is a fake/hoax, but the premises listed are very weak in supporting that, IMO.

photo sold by patrick to guy mossay?

reply to post by mcrom901


You could follow that?

What it sounded like in that article is that this guy Mossad supposedly sold the picture to him (Patrick). But I honestly can't understand what they are trying to say. Maybe someone can translate it better?

The article seems to translate to the fact that one party is calling Hoax and the other is frustrated that this claim has been made if I understood it right.

Very hard to get a good grasp as the translation is poor.

The couple that took the photograph are said to have never made any money from the photo and I believe they are the ones now claiming that it was hoaxed.

The photographer that received the photo, is said to have purchased the rights to the photo and I guess felt that the photo was genuine.

Hopefully I got this right and haven't totally misinterpreted the article lol

There is something about this HOAX claim that just does not sit right with me.

reply to post by Mark_Frost

It is impossible to trust this Patrick's word on the matter.

If the original is a hoax then he is a liar and a charlatan. On the other hand it almost sounds like he feels that he hasn't been paid properly for the original photograph and may be lying now to obtain money for his story - in which case it might not be a hoax but he is lying now.

Doesn't really look too good. Unless I haven't understood the Google translation (which wouldn't be surprising) then it looks as though at some point Patrick has lied for money. Pathetic.

EDIT: Who said honesty pays?

reply to post by IsaacKoi

The Belgian Wave is intriguing on several levels. Mass sighting... long duration... confirmed by radar (both civil and military) airborne radar on F16's ... pilots, police and civilians all saw similar things. So.... assuming that the accounts are true and factual, what evidence are we left with? This one picture. A lot of people from all over have reviewed and re-reviewed all the circumstances and all the testimonial, scientific, expert labs and debunkers have all mired this one photo into a deep morass of uncertainty. And so... in the end, all we are left with is... the photo.
And I just want to direct my (interpretation) to it and it only. See, here we have a craft of some sort, viewed from the bottom, at night, on film. The image seen here is not the original but an enhanced version, showing the shape of a triangle which does not appear in the original. Only the lights are visible. They would provide glare and reduce the visibility of any object they are attached too. Are these three lights flood lights to better light the ground? Why so many and so bright? They don't do much at altitude to light up the ground without the craft giving away its location. Especially at night. Are they engines? why are they on the bottom? Placing thrusters here does little to to help the craft fly laterally so, if engines, why are they even on so close to the ground? Why are they "blurry" unlike the center light, which is steady? And why oh why do they appear to have "ripples" around them, like ripples in a pond from a pebble tossed in? How come these "ripples" are not "blurry", but sharp "crescents" that seem stacked up against each other, in perfect focus? Not all three "lights" display the same pattern of "crescent ripples", but one seems to have a lot on both sides and another has a lot to one side and the third is pretty clean? Contrast all the shaky camera reasons to the center light which is dead still (almost). It would appear the same if cameraman was nervous (which he was), and yet it is not. Some reports have this thingy zooming off at great speed and some have it flat disappearing all at once and reappearing "over there". There is only one solution for that kind of instant displacement... Temporal. These "engines" if you will, these "time engines" on the bottom of the craft are seen in the picture to be "idling" at a low "rate", barely keeping station as it were, in the "now". The crescent ripples apparent in the photo are edges of time, sorta here_ there_now_then, if you will. I know this sounds crazy and I'm sorry for the typos and terminology, but I just don't know any other way to explain what I am seeing with those three lights. A jump in time would enable this craft to be from here to there in an instant. Like the testimony of the Iranian fighter pilot who reported similar phenomenon of instant change of location. The three "engines" would not be "thrusters" in the normal sense of the term, but are perfectly placed to enable an "encompassing temporal warp" as it were, by encasing the whole craft in a field of some kind that allows it to move thru time. Fire them up, and you get a flash and its gone!
(from now) When it goes, I don't know. The center light issues a red "probe" of some kind that darts around looking at stuff and then reenters the center light. Also, beams of light issue from there and are seen pointing like lasers at different objects. But these three have an unknown purpose. They are not search lights and they are not thrusters in the conventional sense cause they could only thrust "UP". My primary argument for this hypothesis is the crescent ripples around the three "lights" visible in the picture. Secondary to that is the equal distant placement of these three lights on the craft. Third are the reports of "disappearing" visually and on radar at the same time and reappearing elsewhere witnessed by different people at different locations at the same time. If I travel a to b you see that. If I "jump" from a to b instantly then you must corollate that in your own mind. Explains the confusion on radar tracks and eyewitness reports that place craft in conflicting "time zones" if you will. I understand some other interpretations of the three "lights" equate them with magnetic field lines. My only problem with that is that they ( the lines or "crescents" ) are visible light and therefore unrelated to magnetism. I don't know, you tell me. How are we going to reverse engineer THAT?

The question is: Was Patrick Ferryn co-founder of SOBEPS wrong as well
as his expert regarding the Petit-Rechain photograph? Check and decide.

Take note that Patrick Ferryn is a professional photographer and film maker
then even that was he deceived?

One fake photo does not exclude the mass sightings in Belgium. I havent watched Secret Access yet, tho i will be this evening, but I watched the 1st episode of UFO Hunters Season 3 about triangluar UFOs.

The visual effects analyzist Terrence ... was dealing with triangular UFO picture and according to him and what he found out, there is really some kind of surface between the three lights, it was not about belgian UFO though.

Yet, some triangular UFOs are just three dots or lights even during daylight footages, and there is no surface between the three lights... hard to explain what's going on in the air.

What my conclusion is also based on recent footage above my city I posted yesterday:
Triangular UFOs are not really triangular, they are boomerang shaped.

This has been confirmed by witnesses for other cases speaking of boomerang UFOs, I think this is the same case for all triangular. It explains how the lights always move in formation, yet there is nothing to show a triangular surface. So yes. this Belgian triangular UFO could be a fake picture