Famous Belgian UFO Photo A Fake

[taikonaut]

Lance, what is your opinion of NASA's analysis in reference to this case? They have gotten it wrong a few times IIRC. I agree that the bug photo's were a low point in what I thought was Keans' sincere efforts.

 

[taikonaut]

Indeed it was.

possédant un laboratoire photographique performant; et par le docteur Richard Haines, travaillant pour la Nasa en Californie. Résultat, après des années d'analyses : la photo de Petit-Rechain n'est pas un truquage.

http://www.dhnet.be/infos/faits-divers/article/217861/les-ovnis-toujours-examines.html

(from ATS)

Thanks for your reply.

 

[taikonaut]

The whole topic of UFO's is a sensitive one that's for sure.

 

[Ron Collins]

Richard F. Haines was born and raised in Seattle, Washington, and attended the University of Washing ton (College of Engineering) and Pacific Lutheran College (Tacoma) where he received the B.A. degree in 1960. He was awarded the M.A. and Ph.D. from Michigan State University (East Lansing) in 1962 and 1964, respectively, in the field of Experimental Psychology.

After working at NASA-Ames from 1967 - 1986 as a research scientist in numerous astronautical (Gemini, Apollo, Skylab, Space Station) and aeronautical (e.g., Mgr. of the Joint FAA/NASA Head-up Display Program, landing simulation research) projects, he was appointed Chief of the Space Human Factors Office at NASA-Ames (1986-1988) where he directed research and development efforts of the AX-5 "hard" EVA space suit, habitability design research for Space Station Freedom, and spacecraft window design.
He retired from government service in 1988 and taught at San Jose State University as an Associate Professor of Psychology while working part time as a scientist in the Research Institute for Advanced Computer Science. From 1990-1991 he has provided consulting services to NASA in various laboratory activities related to supersonic wind tunnel automation redesign and Space Station Freedom - to - ground bandwidth image transmission reduction.

bio - Richard Haines

 

[Muadib]

I'm happy to link Haines' report on that photo from Chile if anyone would like to read it. In the faux science world of UFO's, I think the sham partially depends upon the fact that most people won't bother but will instead say, "Whoa, NASA! Whoa, science" and just accept the paper.

Lance

I'd be interested in reading it if you don't mind posting the link, thanks.

 

[Muadib]

My problem with the whole thing is that it only shows up in one picture, if it was a real solid object and not a flare or reflection, you would expect to find it in more than one of the 6 shots she took in the main photo sequence. I'm no photo analyst but something about that strikes me as off.

 

[Sentry]

http://www.narcap.org/files/aircat_FC_Eleso-Chile_CEFAA-PhotoAnalysis_FINAL_6-10-10.pdf

I tried to read the dang thing, but my eyes glazed over after the second page.
Does that prove it was a UFO?

 

[Muadib]

He threw something about earthquakes in near the end as well, wtf does that have to do with photo analysis? Most of the report seemed to me like him trying to prove that the photo wasn't digitally altered, but he definitely didn't address the whole flare/reflection thing. Is there any way to conclusively prove that, just out of curiosity?

 

[starise]

After a long stint of seeing nothing but little white lights and orbs dancing in the sky the picture is something a lot of people wanted to believe in. It seemed to be substantial...almost too substantial, almost too in the frame. But when the "experts" self proclaimed or not started to stand behind the pic, I think many others were more easily persuaded that yes this is substantial and believeable.

Before the revelations of the picture being suspected as a fraud I wanted to believe it was real but wasn't entirely convinced. I favor the opinion that it was more likely to be a military vehicle but that is OMO. After the revelations I put it in the catagory of that long accepted pic of the Loch Ness monster that was an admitted hoax.

All science,investigation and disiplined study aside, I still rely more heavily on independent witness testimony than on any photo. The people of Belgium did see something repeatedly over more than one night. These people didn't all know one another and most of them had no prior interest in UFOs.Yet their testimony agreed .The descriptions of the objects were similar to the model made by the hoaxer. Remember the Gulf Breeze sightings?They found a model of a UFO in the garage of the home belonging to the supposed victim, however in that case the victim said that he had made the model as a representation of the real sighting. Will we ever know? Almost identical are the observations of something by other people in the area. A lot of books were sold in that case....just sayin'

Count your loses and move on IMHO. The whole thing stinks now and Ufologists are looking for facts.

 

[Goggs Mackay]

Anyone interested in the topic who has not read the classic, "When Prophecy Fails" should do themselves a favor and see how things really work inside a believer group (in this case a UFO cult in the Chicago area).

A newer tactic is to attribute disconfirmations to "The Trickster" or the like, thus pretending that the thing that means nothing as evidence, still means something in a bigger sense.
I don't greet such efforts with much kindness.

Lance

Lance, do you view UFO cults the same as religions or religious cults? Personally I do.

 

[withoutlimits09]

Macabee lost all credibility with me when he "authenticated" the Gulf Breeze UFO. He cemented that idea when he said the "Guardian" UFO footage was the best and most persuasive evidence of a UFO he had ever seen.

 

[boomerang]

On the subject of hoaxed photos combined with testimony from seemingly credible witnesses, I would defer to Jacques Vallee. This is, and always has been, an essentially sociological rather than technological phenomenon. "Sociological' in this case refers to something deeper and more profound than misidentification, confabultion of hoaxing. What, we do not know.

In this sense ufology has always had the historical characteristics of an unfolding religion. Sane people witness incredible, mind bending things, become fundamentally changed in ways they cannot rationally understand, and thereby affect societal values over time. This is my takeaway from the work of Vallee.

This is also why is I pay so little attention to films and photographs. The close encounter is a deeply PERSONAL process. There is no one "best" or defining ufo sighting. It's a matter of countless profound experiences over time that leave society's values changed.

 

[Goggs Mackay]

Who cares about the Belgian Triangle photo anyway? What were the Belgian Air Force chasing is the question people should be asking.

 

[Frank Stalter]

The provenance of the picture was always in doubt largely because it never came out until a couple or more years after the incident. Because the picture is just a model that is apparently a pretty decent representation of what was witnessed, doesn't hurt this well documented case.

 

[Goggs Mackay]

Lance, pictures can be good and bad and they would never be good enough in a court. There are photos I imagine that are hard to explain but what excites me is the reports from multiple pilots and tracks on radar etc.

Of course the UFO lot will attach on to what appears to be a photo of what was reported. If the photo is fake then all that means is that someone took the opportunity of all the sightings to commit a hoax. Who knows it could be a modern-day Jim Moseley!

Every single 'thing' in the world people get into has it's eccentric types who go the whole hog and those who are interested a little and then those who could care less.

Lance, as much as the UFO 'lot' latched onto that photo - YOU yourself are also making a big deal of it while not addressing the actual sightings and Air Force involvement. Now that is hilarious. A photo was never going to be proof of anything. In fact neither will the sightings or the radar tapes. I agree that to have 100% proof, we really do need either an official body to admit they have proof or the proverbial White House Lawn job.

Bear in mind that I have never seen a UFO nor claim that they exist. I am tantalised however by some cases and the fact many countries have official UFO investigations. What about the GEIPAN from France? Isn't it hilarious all these seemingly well-qualified and sensible Frenchmen wasting their time and energy on this silly UFO business?

 

[Goggs Mackay]

No, I grant you that. If the photo is fake, Leslie and anyone else hailing it as such was/is in error. End of.

 

[Burnt State]

I think it comes down to what we "hail" as evidence, which gets a lot of people excited and this photo certainly did that gets skeptics going as photos don't really add up to much - it's just temporary belief. At the same time, we all know hindsight is 20/20 and it's easy for anyone to trash a formerly held belief once proven false.

Similarly, some like to praise rationality and the scientific method, but that's also up for grabs as I believe that we know most experts are wrong, in any field, a substantial amount of the time, and/or are eventually proven wrong. There's only degrees of accuracy that we have to work with. What we believe to be true is always a fluid event.

Bringing emotion into our belief systems no longer seems productive to me, as others have noted on this forum. You believe what you will, and I'll believe something else - it's not worth getting excited about. I think calm conversation and healthy debate is much more exciting to listen to, which we get every now and then on the Paracast.

 

[Randall]

... Of course now that the picture is an exposed fake, everyone distances themselves from it. Hilariously, they pretend that they never took much stock in the photo ...

Once again our resident skeptic reveals his anti-ufology bias. A true skeptic would doubt both claims ... but not Lance. As soon as someone claims responsibility for hoaxing this famous photo, well for lance, that hoaxer must be telling the truth. There is no concern that there may be a motivation for fame or gain or that being a self-confessed liar eliminates any credibility. Nope, that self-proclaimed hoaxer must be telling the truth! Personally, I've seen insufficient evidence to prove the photo is either genuine or a hoax. This reminds me of the claim skeptics made about the Socorro incident being a hoax perpetrated by local college kids. The proof that the Socorro incident is a hoax is just as tenuous.

Leslie Kean called it ( the Petit-Rechain photo ) the "holy grail of ufology".

Perhaps Lance could provide the reference for Kean's quote ( if it even exists ). In her book UFOs General, Pilots, and Government Officials Go On the Record, the Petit-Rechain photo is reproduced three times and none of the captions call it the "holy grail" of anything. In Chapter 2, UFO Wave over Belgium, Kean reached this conclusion with respect to the Belgian wave:

"The most important conclusion is that there must have been air activities of unknown origin in the airspace of Belgium. The number of cases and the credibility of the vast number of witnesses leave us with an intriguing mystery." ( p35)​

I see no mention of a "holy grail" in the above conclusion either. I suspect this whole holy grail issue with Kean is based on some out of context information and twisted to suit the anti-ufology agenda of certain skeptics.

 

[Frank Stalter]

This comes from the work of Marc Hallet, who investigated some of the claims.

I don't see too much work there . . . . just a slam piece on SOBEPS. Whether it's deserved or not . . . . who cares really? I notice De Brouwer's name never comes up in Hallet's piece.

Q: First, could the object have been a radiosonde balloon?

De Brouwer: "No, the object acted as if it was totally independent of the winds, and we have done, among other things, a complete review of meteorological conditions. This is why we did not publish the report until now. We wanted to do a complete study to verify all aspects of the case. Our military defense system is not prepared for this sort of thing. We had to analyze and interpret the data from the recording inside the fighters."

Q: Is it a natural phenomenon, or perhaps the debris from rockets or satellites or space junk?


De Brouwer "No, a meteorite or a fragment of a rocket does not enter the atmosphere in a zig zag fashion. The analysis of the radar traces showed numerous changes in direction, and the atmospheric conditions that prevailed precluded any electromagnetic phenomenon as the cause."






Q: How about the famous F-117 the American Stealth airplane, which many people think may be responsible?


De Brouwer: "This airplane is absolutely designed for penetration at low altitude. On the other hand it has a minimum speed of 278 KPH and the UFOs speed went down to 40 KPH. The F-117 does not have engines that can be tilted down for very slow speed flight. Also no airplane is capable of flying at 1,800 KPH or so low to the ground without creating a sonic boom."

Then he gave me a telex sent by the Military Attache of the U.S. Ambassador to the Commander of the Belgian Air Force confirming that the Stealth airplane was never stationed on European territory nor did it ever fly over that territory.

 

[Burnt State]

I see no mention of a "holy grail" in the above conclusion either. I suspect this whole holy grail issue with Kean is based on some out of context information and twisted to suit the anti-ufology agenda of certain skeptics.

But there are 'holy grails' in the Ufology field: Roswell, Rendlesham Forest, Kecksburg, The Phoenix Lights, the Belgium Triangles, the Trindade photos, the famous abduction lists are as long a list. All these are used, exploded, exploited, cashed in on, and used to create intense belief systems. They are iconic, no?