UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2011 > Jul > Jul 30

Re: Iconic Belgian UFO Claimed To Be A Hoax

From: Giuliano Marinkovic <giuliano.marinkovic.nul>
Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2011 21:01:53 +0200
Archived: Sat, 30 Jul 2011 16:22:56 -0400
Subject: Re: Iconic Belgian UFO Claimed To Be A Hoax


>From: Gildas Bourdais <bourdais.gildas.nul>
>To: <post.nul>
>Date: Sat, 30 Jul 2011 18:01:53 +0200
>Subject: Re: Iconic Belgian UFO Claimed To Be A Hoax

>>From: Roy Hale <roy.nul>
>>To: <post.nul>
>>Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2011 12:47:55 +0100
>>Subject: Re: Iconic Belgian UFO Claimed To Be A Hoax

>><snip>
>>Did the Belgian Airforce physically chase or see on RADAR a
>>flying Triangle UFO at that time of the events?

>>Roy

F-16 were scrambled on the night of March 30/31 1990 when UFO
was detected on radar but there was no visual contact with
pilots. The Patrick's picture was allegedly taken on April 4th
1990.

<snip>

>Guy Mossay is the professional photographer to whom Patrick M.
>gave the licence to exploit the copyright.

<snip>

Thanks Gildas for the confirmation. That is exactly what I
suspected.

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:

http://www.rtl.be/videos/video/345410.aspx

Translation source (credits goes to chikane):

http://tinyurl.com/3fldy97

-----

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

Giuliano



Listen to 'Strange Days... Indeed' - The PodCast

At:

http://www.virtuallystrange.net/ufo/sdi/program/

These contents above are copyright of the author and
UFO UpDates - Toronto. They may not be reproduced
without the express permission of both parties and
are intended for educational use only.

[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |

UFO UpDates Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp


Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com