Famous Belgian UFO Photo A Fake

[Sean Elifritz]

Turns out that one of the most famous UFO photographs of all time, the Belgian triangle, was a hoax. The photographer has now confessed to it.

Some details:

An unidentified flying object photographed high in the Belgian sky that puzzled even NASA scientists turns out to have been a fake made out of foam, the man behind the hoax said Tuesday.

Though scientists pored over the picture of a triangular-shaped flying saucer with four lights, allegedly photographed in April 1990 by a young worker, the mystery remained intact until the man's revelation on the RTL-TVI network.

Made of polystyrene in a matter of hours and photographed that night, the picture was released after several sightings of UFOs over Belgium in 1989 and 1990.

Then aged 18, the man identified only as Patrick said he and a few friends "made it, painted it, hung it up and then photographed it".

The photo was the sharpest available to experts in a two-year period in which thousands of people across Belgium reported UFO sightings.

Several days after its release, a Belgian airforce plane was ordered to hunt down the UFOs across the country, but to no avail. Some believed the UFOs were new stealth fighters being tested by NATO.

"It's too easy to fool people, even with a cheap model," said Patrick, adding he had decided it was time to come clean.

EDIT: Presently I'm not sure if this story is referring to this image:



Or to this one:




Google search string

EDIT again: OK, appears that it is the bottom image (The truly famous one. I hadn't even been aware of the other picture until stephen dedalus brought it up) that the guy is admitting is a fake.

 

[Michael Allen]

so which position makes me more skeptical? -- (1) A hoax image or (2) a hoax confessor?


How precious.

 

[Sean Elifritz]

so which position makes me more skeptical? -- (1) A hoax image or (2) a hoax confessor?


How precious.

And exactly why would he say he hoaxed it if he didn't? That makes no sense at all. But it's an explanation I see all the time in a desperate attempt to hold onto one's belief system.

 

[Sean Elifritz]

Leslie Kean's book claims that expert analysis of the photo revealed "a 'halo' of light particles in a pattern around the craft, suggesting the presence of a strong magnetic field." I'd be interested to see how Kean and this "expert" react to the hoax claims. When I have a little more time I'll see if I can track down the name and credentials of Kean's expert. It would be interesting to set up an experiment: have the hoaxer recreate the hoax, then take the recreation, have the same expert conduct the same photo analysis, and see if the "halo" still turns up. If it does, you've learned something valuable about how apparently (but not authentically) anomalous halo effects can show up on film even when there is a verifiably mundane object in the photograph. If the halo doesn't turn up, you've got reason to wonder if the hoax claim might be suspect.

I thought of Kean's book when I heard of this. Timing is pretty bad for her as it wasn't long ago she made a lot of the Belgium case (And I've made a lot of it too. Mentioned it a few times on this very board, in fact, as a pic I considered to be among the best). The fancy, and ultimately meaningless, technical talk doesn't surprise me. You see it all the time in the UFO field...frequently in court rooms as well. It's the same kind of mumbo-jumbo OJ Simpson's team used to keep him out of jail and to a lesser extent, similar to the hair-splitting nonsense Scientology successfully used to get the Lisa McPherson charges dropped. If there's been one thing demonstrated over and over again it's that junk science and/or meaningless details can be used to paint any sort of picture a person wants to.

 

[stephen dedalus]

It would be interesting to set up an experiment: have the hoaxer recreate the hoax, then take the recreation, have the same expert conduct the same photo analysis, and see if the "halo" still turns up. If it does, you've learned something valuable about how apparently (but not authentically) anomalous halo effects can show up on film even when there is a verifiably mundane object in the photograph. If the halo doesn't turn up, you've got reason to wonder if the hoax claim might be suspect.

---------- Post added at 02:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:30 PM ----------

Wicker,

I've deleted the sections of that post that referenced Kean. Initially, I assumed that the photo in her book is the photo now being claimed as a hoax, but now I wonder if they are two different photos. It was irresponsible of me to assume.

 

[Sean Elifritz]

It would be interesting to set up an experiment: have the hoaxer recreate the hoax, then take the recreation, have the same expert conduct the same photo analysis, and see if the "halo" still turns up. If it does, you've learned something valuable about how apparently (but not authentically) anomalous halo effects can show up on film even when there is a verifiably mundane object in the photograph. If the halo doesn't turn up, you've got reason to wonder if the hoax claim might be suspect.

---------- Post added at 02:31 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:30 PM ----------

Wicker,

I've deleted the sections of that post that referenced Kean. Initially, I assumed that the photo in her book is the photo now being claimed as a hoax, but now I wonder if they are two different photos. It was irresponsible of me to assume.

I don't have her book (Not in physical form anyway) but I know there's a chapter dedicated to the Belgium incident in there. I'd be surprised if she didn't include the picture.

 

[stephen dedalus]

I don't have her book but I know there's a chapter dedicated the Belgium incident in there. I'd be surprised if she didn't include the picture.

But which picture? Is this the alleged hoax



or is it this one



?

I don't think it's the first picture (the dates and names don't match), but I'm not sure how trustworthy that date and attribution are.

I initially assumed we were talking about the second picture. If we are, that's the one that's in Kean's book. According to Major General Wilfried de Brouwer, who contributed the second chapter of her book, the photograph was originally analyzed in 1990 by "a team under the direction of Professor Marc Acheroy" (30). Further analysis was conducted by "Francois Louange, specialist in satellite imagery with the French national space research center, CNES; Dr. Richard Haines, former senior scientist with NASA; and finally Professor Andre Marion, doctor in nuclear physics and professor at the University of Paris-Sud and also with CNES" (30). Professor Marion's 2002 analysis used, according to de Brouwer, a "more sophisticated technology," and "numeric treatment of the photograph revealed a halo of something lighter surrounding the craft. Special optical processing shows that within the halo, the light particles form a certain pattern around the craft like snowflakes in turbulence...very similar to the pattern of iron filings which is caused by 'the lines of force' in a magnetic field." De Brouwer speculates that this pattern could suggest the use of a "magnetoplasmadynamic propulsion system" (30).

If we're talking about photo 2, then, it wasn't only NASA that got fooled. I'd like to know more about this "more sophisticated technology" and this "numeric treatment of the photograph."

 

[Sean Elifritz]

That top one doesn't look like a real picture to me. I believe we're talking about the bottom picture. I don't even know what that top one is. Are these totally different photographs forwarded by different people or are they the same photograph with different enhancements?

---------- Post added at 03:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:57 PM ----------

Have to admit I'm now a little perplexed. I'm not sure which picture is the one being discussed. If it's that top one then big deal, that pic doesn't look all that impressive anyway. The important pic of the Belgium triangle has always been the bottom one in my mind. I wasn't even aware of that other one. Different sites with the story have different pics attached, some the top one, some the bottom one. Trying to find out exactly which one is the one being confessed to as a hoax. If it's the top one then this thread was a bit of a goof-up on my part, ha ha.

 

[stephen dedalus]

If the information in the first photo is accurate, they are different photos taken by different people at different times. The top photo was supposedly taken in June 1990, and the bottom in April of the same year.

I don't claim to know if either photo is authentic, or if one is CG, or what. But I know I've seen both photos brought up in connection with the story. For example, Robert Morningstar's presentation "Photo Enhancements, Analysis & Interpretation of the Belgian Black triangle Photos" at the 2007 National Press Conference UFO Report considers both photos:

The National Press Club Conference on UFOs: Part III

So, I wanted to be sure that I knew which one we were talking about.

Edit:

This report


clears it up. It's the second photo, which is the one in Kean's book.

 

[Sean Elifritz]

If the information in the first photo is accurate, they are different photos taken by different people at different times. The top photo was supposedly taken in June 1990, and the bottom in April of the same year.

I don't claim to know if either photo is authentic, or if one is CG, or what. But I know I've seen both photos brought up in connection with the story, so I wanted to be sure that I knew which we were talking about.

Well, I'm glad you brought it up because I wasn't even aware there were two different photos and just assumed this story was talking about the one I knew of. That top pic, imo, looks like crap and if it's a fake big deal (Wouldn't it be ironic if the top one, despite being so much less striking looking, were in fact the REAL one?). That isn't even a story. But the bottom one has always intrigued me, has always seemed real to me (Yep, I completely admit it fooled me). A site I just checked out says that the bottom one is actually a still from a video. Don't know if that's true or not but if so where's the video? I've never seen it.

Belgium UFO Flap | Cosmic Paradigm

 

[stephen dedalus]

The photo that de Brouwer's discussing was taken on 4 April 1990, at 10 PM in Petit-Rechain, on a still camera loaded with color slides with "only two shots" left (Kean 29). No mention of video footage at all.

 

[Sean Elifritz]

The photo that de Brouwer's discussing was taken on 4 April 1990, at 10 PM in Petit-Rechain, on a still camera loaded with color slides with "only two shots" left (Kean 29).

Yeah, OK. It's the second picture then just as I thought from the beginning. I don't even know anything about that other picture. Don't know why that one site is claiming the picture is a still from a video.

 

[stephen dedalus]

Yeah, OK. It's the second picture then just as I thought from the beginning.

Yes, you were right from the beginning. Apologies if I muddied the waters unnecessarily. Now, it will be very interesting to see if there are calls for the hoaxer to recreate the hoax, and, if so, to see if he agrees to try. If he can do it successfully, there will be a lot to learn for UFO photo analysts. I'd still like to have some more information about the techniques employed by the specialists de Brouwer describes. I wonder if Kean will attempt some damage control.

Of course, I don't want to now assume that the entire Belgian flap was nonsense, but the fact remains that the most striking piece of visual evidence to emerge from it may have to be thrown out, and that doesn't help the case one bit.

 

[Sean Elifritz]

Yes, you were right from the beginning. Apologies if I muddied the waters unnecessarily. Now, it will be very interesting to see if there are calls for the hoaxer to recreate the hoax, and, if so, to see if he agrees to try. If he can do it successfully, there will be a lot to learn for UFO photo analysts. I'd still like to have some more information about the techniques employed by the specialists de Brouwer describes. I wonder if Kean will attempt some damage control.

Of course, I don't want to now assume that the entire Belgian flap was nonsense, but the fact remains that the most striking piece of visual evidence to emerge from it may have to be thrown out, and that doesn't help the case one bit.

Well, I've already seen quite a few remarks on the net that the admission of the hoax is in fact the hoax, lol. So yeah, I'm sure those guys will demand that he reproduce it. For me it's a done deal: the pic is a fake.

---------- Post added at 04:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:58 PM ----------

Of course, there is still the hundreds of witnesses, the radar tracks, the intercepts, etc., going for the Belgium flap. It's certainly not a dead issue. But I do think this revelation weakens it because that pic was probably the best piece of evidence steering it in the direction of a manufactured object rather than just weather phenomena or something like that.

 

[stephen dedalus]

Well, I've already seen quite a few remarks on the net that the admission of the hoax is in fact the hoax, lol. So yeah, I'm sure those guys will demand that he reproduce it. For me it's a done deal: the pic is a fake.

---------- Post added at 04:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:58 PM ----------

Of course, there is still the hundreds of witnesses, the radar tracks, the intercepts, etc., going for the Belgium flap. It's certainly not a dead issue. But I do think this revelation weakens it because it was probably the best piece of evidence steering it in the direction of a manufactured object rather than just weather phenomena or something like that.

Yeah, it was so iconic and looked so monolithic that for better or for worse it has come to represent the Belgian flap as a whole. And when an image comes to stand for something, debunking the image can seem to debunk that which it stands for, even if there's more to the story than that single image. In the heart, if not in the head, the Belgian flap seems just a little tougher to take seriously now. That's the real tragedy of hoaxes like this, assuming that it is in fact a hoax.

 

[Ron Collins]

How many people looked at this image and proclaimed it to be real? Nasa, optical physicists, photo experts? Yet some people only have to hear one dude claim it is fake to throw it away. Let me turn this around. We have plenty of expert testimony saying that the image is real. For this to be busted, we need a recreation. Period. Not just one guy claiming fake.

So just so I am clear the image in question is this one, right?

 

[Sean Elifritz]

@Ron:

It's the guy that took the pic! It isn't just some random person grabbed off the street and asked about it.

And yeah, you've got the right pic.

---------- Post added at 06:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:41 PM ----------

Btw, there's a translation of an interview posted at UFO Updates where some scientists, one that appears to have been with SOBEPS, say that although it had been missed at the time they now have evidence that the radar returns were caused by weather anomalies.

Re: Iconic Belgian UFO Claimed To Be A Hoax

 

[stephen dedalus]

Until and unless we get a recreation from "Patrick," we can look to the independent recreation on page 21 of "The Petit-Rechain photograph" by Roger Paquay:

http://home.comcast.net/~tprinty/UFO/SUNlite3_2.pdf

I wonder if the re-creator, Wim van Utrecht, would be willing to submit his photograph for "numeric treatment" to see if the halo effect can be reproduced under controlled circumstances with a known fake. If it can, then some of the expert testimony from the authorities de Brouwer cites would be disqualified, and the claims that the hoaxer is hoaxing his hoax would be difficult to support by invoking expert analysis.

 

[Sean Elifritz]

Until and unless we get a recreation from "Patrick," we can look to the independent recreation on page 21 of "The Petit-Rechain photograph" by Roger Paquay:

http://home.comcast.net/~tprinty/UFO/SUNlite3_2.pdf

I wonder if the re-creator, Wim van Utrecht, would be willing to submit his photograph for "numeric treatment" to see if the halo effect can be reproduced under controlled circumstances with a known fake. If it can, then some of the expert testimony from the authorities de Brouwer cites would be disqualified, and the claims that the hoaxer is hoaxing his hoax would be difficult to support by invoking expert analysis.

I've read that article before and wasn't a fan of it. Seems to be brimming with much of the big talk and junk science we were talking about earlier. I also don't care for his criticism of the witness description of size not precisely matching what's in the photograph. Isn't it commonly stated that witness testimony is fallible, that people routinely get things wrong? But he seems to want it both ways. Say that witness descriptions shouldn't be taken too seriously when it suits your purpose, but then rely heavily on witness descriptions if and when it takes you in the direction you want to arrive at. Yeah, the picture did turn out to be fake. But even in hindsight I still think his article is bad. He lucked into the right call, the talking points that got him there were largely gibberish.

 

[stephen dedalus]

He lucked into the right call, the talking points that got him there were largely gibberish.

I'm not qualified to evaluate his methodology, but I won't argue with your assessment of his shifting stance on witness testimony, either. I do think the van Utrecht photo reproduced in the article (which I think Paquay acknowledges was originally from a Jenny Randles book) could be useful for the reasons I outlined above, and it could be used without tacitly endorsing the investigative protocols that led Paquay to his conclusion.