Belgian Triangle UFO pic a Hoax.

[Zep Tepi]

I've updated the main site with a brief article discussing these latest revelations.

Black Triangle UFO a Fake

With a tip of the hat to Tim and SUNlite 3.2
Thanks also to Nab for bringing this to our attention.

Cheers,
Steve

[Access Denied]

[Admin Edit: posts from the “Your favorite UFO image/s?” thread about this merged into this one so they’re all in one place]

Personally, I think it’s pretty obvious it was a hoax based on this…

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgian_UFO_wave


A supposed black triangle, 15 June 1990, Wallonia, Belgium. Claimed to have been taken during the UFO wave, though released thirteen years later

[Access Denied]

Hmm…

http://ufoupdateslist.com/2011/jul/m30-003.shtml (posted last weekend)

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

BTW, if Patrick M. is telling the truth today, he let Mossay sell the his fake picture copyright on his behalf for over 21 years and is therefore he is a thief. My publisher bought it in 1997, and it was rather expensive. If he is lying now, he is also dishonest, of course. So, I suggest caution.

http://www.theparacast.com/forum/thread ... 7?p=121002 (posted yesterday)
http://ufoupdateslist.com/2011/aug/m04-002.shtml (posted later yesterday)

OL : have you earned any money with this story ?

PM : No, I never earned anything at the time nor today. There's certainly the photographer of that time, M. Mosay, to whom I lent the slide who, maybe, has earned something, but me, no. Except for the exchange of my camera that I was asked to lend for analysis and, quite some time after, when I wanted to get it back, I was proposed to exchange from a slightly better one. I agreed. By curiosity, I'd like to know if someone earned something with my photo and how much.

What do you make of this Nab?

I’m afraid I’m confused, did someone at COBEPS pay PM for his camera or MM (or is it GM?) for the original or both?

P.S. You are famous now.

[nablator]

I’m afraid I’m confused, did someone at COBEPS pay PM for his camera or MM (or is it GM?) for the original or both?

"M. Mosay" in the interview is actually Mr Mossay. (M. is short for Mister in french).

One thing is sure: Guy Mossay (professional photographer working for Belga news agency) claimed copyright. It's unclear whether he was aware of the deception or not. How much he earned from it I have no idea. According to Gildas Bourdais and others, quite a lot, as the slide was reproduced in many magazines and books.

PM claims in the above OVNI Languedoc interview that no one paid him anything which contradicts what SOBEPS wrote in the VOB1 book :

The latter [Guy Mossay] realized the advantage he could possibly draw from it and acquired the contractual rights of media exploitation of the document.

According to PM, Guy Mossay borrowed the original and never returned it. PM got a slightly better camera in exchange for his own, probably (as it is not said in the interview) from SOBEPS, not from Mossay who was never involved in any analysis, whereas Patrick Ferryn (S/COBEPS) did try to make a similar photo of a wooden model and failed.

About the issue of the credibility of PM: some ufologists want PM to do a perfect remake, identical in every pixel to his famous slide. PM will try but of course it will not be identical. On a windy day the "plasma" may look better. PM has promised to look for other slides, that show it was a model, that he has misplaced after moving several times.

Auguste Meessen (S/COBEPS) still doubts it could have been a hoax because it destroys the credibility of his (extremely speculative) analysis. He will continue to investigate.

[nablator]

The original slide in Leslie Kean's facebook wall photos:

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid= ... =1&theater
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid= ... =1&theater
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid= ... =1&theater
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid= ... =1&theater

Guy Mossay is affiliated to SOFAM (the slide is © Guy Mossay/SOFAM) a copyright collective for visual arts authors, that collects and redistributes royalties.
http://www.sofam.be/

[Access Denied]

Very interesting Nab, I think I get it now. Thank you for clarifying all that.

It would appear PM and GM have positioned themselves (I suspect not without the aide of third-party orchestration) so that neither is financially liable to anyone other than each other…

[which would explain why the “plasma” free slides have been “misplaced”]

[nablator]

which would explain why the “plasma” free slides have been “misplaced”]

From his (Patrick M.'s) naive approach to hoax disclosure (not protecting his anonymity enough - now that some scumbag journalist and ufologist published it almost everyone knows his surname) and careless attitude (he didn't keep the original slide or any proof that he hoaxed it other than the "making of" slides that he hasn't recovered yet) added to Patrick Ferryn, president of COBEPS, who knew him since 1990, vouching for him, I don't think there is any foul play. He is not trying to hide anything IMHO.

According to Belgian copyright law, PM still holds rights (if his story is true and he has not signed away the rights) so he could sue GM or simply resolve the conflict through SOFAM. From interviews he does not seem to want to do so (he could have done it earlier, without revealing the hoax), he is only vaguely interested to know how much GM made. This is consistent with the attitude of a "honest" hoaxer, who does not want to profit from the hoax.

I believe (my interpretation) that SOBEPS misunderstood the nature of the agreement between PM and GM. PM didn't care at all and possibly gave his verbal agreement to GM, which is not legally binding.

[Access Denied]

He is not trying to hide anything IMHO.

Makes sense the way you explained it, I continue to defer to your close proximity and superior knowledge.

If that’s the case then PM ought to be congratulated for coming forward and the shame now rests with those who exploited the photo in various intellectually dishonest (if not worse) ways for their own personal gain.

[nablator]

If that’s the case then PM ought to be congratulated for coming forward and the shame now rests with those who exploited the photo in various intellectually dishonest (if not worse) ways for their own personal gain.

Well, GM could not be accused of anything I guess other than swindling PM (who doesn't seem to care). Ufologists did their best to exploit any feeble evidence and hype it as much as possible.

PM has involuntarily revealed to everyone the extent of the ignorance of those experts suffering from the Maccabee syndrom: seemingly scientific analysis that only proves the analyst did not understand some aspects and uses his lack of understanding as proof of flying alien vehicles.

Not necessarily a surprise to many here, but using the slide as one of the "best evidence" (see Leslie Kean's wall) speaks volumes about the low standards of some ufologists. The argument from authority (Prof. X, Dr. Y, NASA expert...) was used extensively and no one wanted to listen to the skeptics (Magain, Van Utrecht, Paquay).

SOBEPS had the extremely bad idea of using the Petit-Rechain image as cover illustration for its two publications (VOB1 and VOB2).


I hope the lesson will be learned next time someone submits an "undebunkable" photo.

[nablator]

Guy Mossay has a different version. According to him in this article:
http://www.lavenir.net/article/detail.a ... 9_00030728
It wasn't just a prank. Patrick needed a little money for his wedding. He came looking for him, and GM accepted to buy the original slide. GM accuses PM of fraud.

Who's lying?