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 - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp