Show Posts


Messages - JaquesPlafond

Pages: [1] 2 3
Future Episodes / Re: UFOs and Aliens
« on: August 22, 2009, 05:09:08 PM »

Once again.. i'm wondering what KIND of helicopter you guys are talking about? Are there any other pictures of it that show the same properties as the 2 famous pictures of the triangle? Or were these 2 pictures a fluke?

btw.. eyewitnesses state that the blurryness of the edges of the triangle was actually a property of the triangle.

None of the people who analyzed the pictures seems to think it's a helicopter.

Leclet doesn't mention the Petit Rechain nor the Henrardi pictures in his study for a good reason: they don't support his helicopter hypothesis.

I don't see how occams razor would dictate how something that doesn't look like a helicopter would be a helicopter.. lol.. then again, maybe it makes sense to you guys. It'd make more sense if you thought it was a stealth bomber/fighter.. but then again, why would they fly those over urban areas for everyone to see?

Here's a video of a blackhawk flying and landing at night:

One thing that's immediately apparent is that they're NOISY, and the lights hardly show up on video.. nothing like the lights in the pictures of the triangle. Maybe you guys can find something more convincing though.

Future Episodes / Re: UFOs and Aliens
« on: August 21, 2009, 10:09:19 PM »
The picture of the triangle UFO has been analysed to death already, btw. Here's something to sink your teeth in:

The famous slide of Petit-Rechain was analysed in the 1990’s by several experts in scientific imagery, particularly by Marc Acheroy (Royal Military School, Brussels), François Louange (Fleximage company, Paris) and Richard F. Haines (Los Altos California); on Oct. 15th 2001, Patrick Ferryn of the SOBEPS gave us this slide, he wanted us to analyse it in our turn using the latest techniques of image numerical analysis, used in the Theoretical and Applied Optics Institute in Orsay. The purpose of this was to compare our results to the previous results, and to outline extra information and if possible draw conclusions about the authenticity of the document and about the nature of the object photographed

General obversation of the slide

In a first step, we have conducted a visual observation of the film after taking it out of its frame, then a digitisation by transparency using a flatbed scanner Agfa Duoscan T1200. Our observations match those previously made:
- The frame of the picture is perfectly neat and with no split even if it is seen with a very increased contrast; this excludes a double or multiple exposure during the photography.
- It is very difficult to consider faking with a model or any other similar process. This will be confirmed by numerical treatment (see below).
- Video processing or CGI can’t be imagined either: such pictures characteristics are not found on the slide, even by increasing enormously the contrasts.
Even if nothing can be excluded, it seems very likely that the picture is one of a solid object seen on a sky background, object of an unidentified origin to this day.

Digitisation of the picture
The second step was to precisely digitise the slide using a 35mm Canon film scanner with an optical resolution of 2720ppp, which brings a pixel size of under 10µm. That resolution is much bigger than that of the film (around 1µm) but greatly better than the smallest significant details in the picture, which are never under 20µm.
Other than the four very luminous stains, the picture is nearly black and had nearly no contrast. It was thus necessary to have, as early as the digitisation, a noise/signal ratio as good as possible, in order to catch the smallest differences, even in the darkest areas of the picture. For that purpose, we have used a technique consisting in averaging multiple consecutive digitisations: by digitising n times the slide in the same conditions, one reduces the noise part of the image due to the electronic equipment by a factor of 1/sqrt(n).
By digitising the slide in a normal position, then rotated by 90°, 180° and 270°, it is possible to average the fixed noise due to the structure of the equipment (non uniform answers from the bar photosites). To do that, you then need to reprocess the pictures up to the pixel, with an appropriate software, in order to superimpose them perfectly.
It is also possible to reduce the quantification noise influence (i.e. the pixels are coded by 8 bits per colour, that is 256 levels) by averaging the digitisation of the film in ‘positive film’ mode and ‘negative film’ mode, because the answer curves of the scanner are not the same in both modes.
Having then obtained a final average picture in its three components red, green and blue, we kept only a roughly 2 centimetres square, composed of 2430 by 2430 pixels. Finally, given the size of the smallest visible details (about 20µm as said above), we resized that zone to 1024 by 1024 by interpolation of pixels (fig 1.), in order to limit the size of the pictures and the calculation times.

Numerical treatments results

1. A contrasts increase brings out the object shape (fig. 2), particularly on the blue component (fig. 3). That outline is in the shape of an isosceles triangle ABC nearly squared angled on A, completed on its base by a quadrilateral BCED very similar to a rectangle. Taking into account the viewing angle, it is probable that angles A, D and E are square angles, and that the object is horizontal. On the object, very dark, are four very bright stains, that we will call lights to simplify. Three of those lights are close to A, D and E on the object, while the fourth one is situated roughly on the altitude AH of the triangle, from vertex A down to the DE base (fig. 4). It is not possible to estimate the size of or distance to the object, because there is no landmark.

Some areas of the outline are nearly neat while others are blurred, indicating a relative movement of the object and the film. The most believable explanation is that the object has executed a movement during the exposure time, the camera being fixed, but we can’t exclude a small movement of the camera. The two extreme positions are shown on figure 5.
The shape of the observed blurring can be explained by a rotation of the object in space, around an axis going through a point O nearly on the line BC and such that BO = O.25 BC (fig. 5). The rotation angle is close to 5°. We could simulate that blur effect by simulation (fig. 6).

The same rotation also allows to find the whole set movement the four lights underwent, supposed circular on the simulation. However, the three external lights show complex coloured structures and distortions that this global rotation do not explain: the obtained pictures necessarily imply independent movements for all of those lights in comparison with the object.

2. Various colour treatments allow to bring out a luminous halo around the object as well as light trails between the lights, particularly between the central light and the edge ones (fig 7.). However these treatments, in real as well as false colours, do not allow to draw a conclusion about the nature of that halo, nor to be able to precise what are those lights: lighting systems, signal lights or hovering/propulsion systems from the object.

3. Decomposition of the picture in brightness, hue and saturation provides rich information, particularly on the saturation component. This information is substantially improved through frequency filters and colour compositions. Processes have allowed to show privileged directions, especially in the halo that surrounds the object (fig. 8, 9, 10, 11). These directions correspond to the orientations of small luminous grains which, on the picture, compose a sort of rotation around the object, to be compared to snow flakes being flown around in a wind vortex. We can also compare it to iron filings that would be oriented in the lines of a magnetic field. Would that be electromagnetic perturbations, an air ionisation process? Without any available elements, the nature of that phenomenon is difficult to precise, even more because it is practically unspottable on the red, green or blue components of the image. These new observations are even more interesting because they seem to reinforce some theories, like those of the ionic plasma waves, theory used by Auguste Meessen, Professor Emeritus at Louvain University, about the object propulsion (magnetoplasmadynamic propulsion).

Anyway, the existence of those “force lines” is a heavy argument against a faking, which would then be particularly elaborated. Moreover one doesn’t see well a reason why a hoaxer would have undergone the effort to imagine and realise such a complex phenomenon, particularly since it is only perceivable with a sophisticated image processing.

The numerical processing that we executed in Orsay on the Petit-Rechain slide have confirment the major observations already made. They also brought new surprising results about the luminous halo surrounding the object, showing a process in the appearance of a whirl. The nature of the physical phenomenon corresponding could, according to some authors, be linked to the particular propulsion system of the object. That question ought to be investigated further.  (source)

Oh, and yet another slightly larger version of the picture, showing STARS in the background where the rest of the helicopter should have been if that's what it was.

Future Episodes / Re: UFOs and Aliens
« on: August 21, 2009, 09:41:46 PM »
I can ASSURE you that's not the full picture. Look at the motion blur! There is NO WAY something's going to move like that and someone get it perfectly framed so tightly.

And it's HARDLY a coincidence that it JUST SO HAPPENS to match the configuration of lights on a French Army helicopter! Three in a triangle, red in the middle--it's PERFECT! It seems obvious to me that this has been cropped because the full picture would make it more obvious what it really is.

Did you have a look at the movie clip? It shows the whole thing, but no helicopter to be seen there. Besides, do you think that the Belgian airforce is going to persue one of it's own helicopters and mistake it for a UFO? What kind of helicopter would that be anyway?

Another picture of the same object. Does that look like a helicopter to you?

Future Episodes / Re: UFOs and Aliens
« on: August 21, 2009, 08:54:27 PM »
I HAVE looked into it. So far there is NOTHING you've presented that I haven't seen. You're just like a pathetically ignorant creationist ranting on that we're "dismissing" things that have been debunked long ago.

Nice blanket statement again.. lol. Is that the best you can do?

So who debunked those video's? How were they made? That Mexican video i posted was released just a few days ago, so i doubt you've seen it before i posted it here, and the skeptibunkers haven't had a chance to make up an 'explanation' for you to swallow hook, line and sinker yet.

There is NO FUCKING WAY that picture was initially framed like that. It's obviously cropped. Where's the uncropped version?
This is the biggest version of the triangle picture i can find, so for all i know that could be the full picture.

We've discussed witness reliability a bit before. To illustrate that in many cases their descriptions are actually pretty close, here are some drawings made by witnesses of the Belgian UFO. You'll notice that some of them drawings are spot on:

One guy mistook a helicopter for a UFO, but once you realize that what he saw was actually a blackhawk, the drawing is also spot on, including the open doors and the placement of the lights.

So if the belgian case has been debunked, what do the pictures and the film clip show?

Awaiting next platitude with baseless assertions and some namecalling for good measure ;) I can't wait for the episode on UFO's you're going to make, because i'm sure it's gonna be a hoot!

Future Episodes / Re: UFOs and Aliens
« on: August 21, 2009, 06:15:34 PM »
Well, we know that the assumptions you're making are the reasons YOU'RE not looking into it. The footage is there, the witnesses are there, the locations they filmed it from are known.. From what i understand they were 6 to 8 miles apart, so that should be your first clue for the size of the objects. Those aren't insects or birds!

You could contact a guy called 'free spirit' who has some of the original footage. He's on ATS.. maybe this thread is a good place to start:

btw.. i think it's pretty rare that unplanned events like this are being filmed from multiple angles, not to mention in focus or high definition. Most people have crappy cams, and they never look up.. they look straight ahead or to the ground when they're walking... people are always in their head! lol.. always thinking about anything but that which they are doing or where they are.

Anyway, these videos were released very recently, and i'm sure the last word hasn't be said about them. I'm going to eat my hat if they turn out to be fake.. but you never know. It would the best hoax i know of so far anyway.

Future Episodes / Re: UFOs and Aliens
« on: August 21, 2009, 04:19:19 PM »
That depends on the properties of the phenomenon. Once again you're defining what criteria would satisfy you, instead of looking what data is actually there.

However, with everyone having a camera nowadays, the amount of multiple witness UFO's being filmed is growing.

Here's a recent example of a multi-witness UFO being filmed by 2 independant witnesses. As it turns out, they filmed the exact same event from 2 different angles. In the last few minutes of the video, you can see how the events line up. If you can kindof comprehend Spanish, they also explain why in one video the orbs are black, whereas in the other they are bright (The video's are made in 2 different angles, one has the sun shining on the objects, the other is the shadow side).

So could this still be a hoax? Well, maybe theoretically. It hasn't been exposed as such, even if the involvement of Jaime Maussan (as the one who brings the videos to television) raises suspicions with some people. I think Maussan is just a businessman trying to make an interesting program though, and sometimes he brings stuff into the limelight that turns out to be a hoax.

It's not 17 angles, but it sure is interesting, i think.

Here's a version which has subtitles:

Future Episodes / Re: UFOs and Aliens
« on: August 21, 2009, 03:02:25 PM »
I've been to places like Medjugorje and trust me, even in this modern day and age the people there are willing to believe that water coming out of a crack in a bronze statue is a miracle
No matter how many people see it and believe it to be true its not always what they want it to be.

Thousands of people thought Uri Geller was for real

Were they right?

So what's your point? That people can be easily fooled? Sure, i'll give you that, but what if there is actually an anomalous phenomenon out there, wouldn't people be reporting on it? And yes, people believe rediculous things (religion anyone?). Personally, i'm not too interested in the whole Fatima thing though, because i think there are much better cases.

Future Episodes / Re: UFOs and Aliens
« on: August 21, 2009, 10:41:36 AM »
And here's a critical look at Marc Hallet's report:

And if you're serious about looking into the Belgian events (beyond having a look at Wikipedia and linking a skeptical article), have a look here:

I just found this video, which kindof superficially deals with the Belgian wave:

At a certain point they have some 'skeptics' on (the usual suspects: McGaha and Schermer), and all they do is make dumb blanket statements, whilst showing silly pictures of aliens. That to me sums it up for those skeptics.

In fact i think Phill Klass does a good job of conveying the agenda of his ilk. He made this statement after familiarizing himself with the airforce's 'theory' of the aliens that were reportedly sighted by several witnesses at the Roswell crash. The Airforce claims that what those witnesses saw were actually some sort of crash test dummies, used for parachute tests. The one niggle is that those dummies only came into use a decade later, in the 50's.

So even UFO-skeptic Phil Klass doesn't believe that story, and makes the following remark:

"It is not a strong enough theory to try to explain some of the statements of the quote-unquote key witnesses," Klass said. "In my opinion, this report will not convince any flying saucer believers, and in fact, I suspect they will accuse the Air Force of trying to cover up and divert attention from the crashed saucer."

And that's a dead giveaway: the point is not to factually find out what happened in Roswell, but to concoct 'theories' that convince 'flying saucer believers'. (source)

Here's some of the footage shot of the Belgian UFO. Does it support Leclet's helicopter theory? Does the picture i posted in a previous post support it? Do the picture and the footage show the same object?

Future Episodes / Re: UFOs and Aliens
« on: August 19, 2009, 11:14:53 AM »
Yes, I was referring to the Fatima "miracle." Can we all agree that, although they must have seen SOMETHING, it was NOT the sun cleaving in two?

(And actually, Joe Nickell has a pretty solid explanation for what it might have been.)

Yah, we can agree on that much.

I don't know about Joe NIckells' 'explanation' though. I highly doubt that a sundog would get the panties of 100.000 people in a knot. But for a pathological skeptic, this kind of 'explanation' works. I'm all for investigating anomalous phenomena in a scientific way, but from what i know about Nickel, i'm not going to trust anything he says, exactly because it's far from scientific. For an example of his methods, you can have a look here: Joe Nickel and Roswell. He's still peddling the latest airforce 'explanation' for Roswell (the fourth, i think), which has been thoroughly debunked.

Future Episodes / Re: UFOs and Aliens
« on: August 18, 2009, 11:24:28 PM »
Ok will do...

Umm so did you actually mean Fatima?

Future Episodes / Re: UFOs and Aliens
« on: August 18, 2009, 11:08:50 PM »
The difference is, we ended up with a LOT more evidence for meteorites than badly-remembered things and blurry pictures.

Is that what you think all the evidence consists of?

And that's besides the point anyways. The fact that we did find more evidence for meteorites doesn't mean that the UFO phenomenon is invalid untill the day we find a flying saucer and aliens (which we apparently did in 1947, btw). You're simply dismissive of it for the same reasons those skeptics 300 years ago were... and from what i've seen you're not very well informed about the subject either, yet you have a very strong opinion about it.

Just another case of 'Investigation by Proclamation', the trademark of the skeptibunker.

Did you know in Portugal about 100 years ago, something like 17,000 people saw the sun cleave in two and fall out of the sky?

Well, i never heard of that specific event, unless you're referring to the Fatima event, which as far as i know has never been conclusively explained. Then again, i never really looked at it, since it somehow doesn't interest me too much. What we can say about this event however is:

1: something happened
2: People interpreted in their own individual way
3: we don't know what exactly happened

2 doesn't make 1 untrue however, nor does it provide a satisfactory explanatin for the whole event.

From Wiki:


According to many witness statements, after a downfall of rain, the dark clouds broke and the sun appeared as an opaque, spinning disk in the sky.[2] It was said to be significantly less bright than normal, and cast multicolored lights across the landscape, the shadows on the landscape, the people, and the surrounding clouds.[2] The sun was then reported to have careened towards the earth in a zigzag pattern,[2] frightening some of those present who thought it meant the end of the world.[3] Some witnesses reported that their previously wet clothes became "suddenly and completely dry."[4]

Estimates of the number of witnesses range from 30,000-40,000 by Avelino de Almeida, writing for the Portuguese newspaper O Século,[5] to 100,000, estimated by Dr. Joseph Garrett, professor of natural sciences at the University of Coimbra,[6] both of whom were present that day.[7]

The miracle was attributed by believers to Our Lady of Fátima, an apparition of the Blessed Virgin Mary to three young shepherd children in 1917, as having been predicted by the three children on 13 July,[8] 19 August,[9] and 13 September[10] 1917. The children reported that the Lady had promised them that she would on 13 October reveal her identity to them[11] and provide a miracle "so that all may believe."[12]

According to these reports, the miracle of the sun lasted approximately ten minutes.[13] The three children also reported seeing a panorama of visions, including those of Jesus, the Blessed Virgin Mary, and of Saint Joseph blessing the people.[14]

De Marchi claims that the prediction of an unspecified "miracle", the abrupt beginning and end of the alleged miracle of the sun, the varied religious backgrounds of the observers, the sheer numbers of people present, and the lack of any known scientific causative factor make a mass hallucination unlikely.[23] That the activity of the sun was reported as visible by those up to 18 kilometers away, also precludes the theory of a collective hallucination or mass hysteria, according to De Marchi.[23]

Despite these assertions, not all witnesses reported seeing the sun "dance". Some people only saw the radiant colors. Others, including some believers, saw nothing at all.[24] [25] No scientific accounts exist of any unusual solar or astronomic activity during the time the sun was reported to have "danced", and there are no witness reports of any unusual solar phenomenon further than forty miles out from Cova da Iria.[26]

Pio Scatizzi, S.J. describes events of Fátima and concludes

The ... solar phenomena were not observed in any observatory. Impossible that they should escape notice of so many astronomers and indeed the other inhabitants of the hemisphere… there is no question of an astronomical or meteorological event phenomenon …Either all the observers in Fátima were collectively deceived and erred in their testimony, or we must suppose an extra-natural intervention.[27]


A parhelion in rainbow colors, photographed in 2005.Joe Nickell, a skeptic and investigator of paranormal phenomena, claims that the position of the phenomenon, as described by the various witnesses, is at the wrong azimuth and elevation to have been the sun.[29] He suggests the cause may have been a sundog. Sometimes referred to as a parhelion or "mock sun", a sundog is a relatively common atmospheric optical phenomenon associated with the reflection/refraction of sunlight by the numerous small ice crystals that make up cirrus or cirrostratus clouds. A sundog is, however, a stationary phenomenon, and would not explain the reported appearance of the "dancing sun". Nickell suggests an explanation for this and other similar phenomena may lie in temporary retinal distortion, caused by staring at the intense light and/or by the effect of darting the eyes to and fro so as to avoid completely fixed gazing (thus combining image, afterimage and movement). Nickell concludes that there was

likely a combination of factors, including optical and meteorological phenomena (the sun being seen through thin clouds, causing it to appear as a silver disc; an alteration in the density of the passing clouds, so that the sun would alternatively brighten and dim, thus appearing to advance and recede; dust or moisture droplets in the atmosphere, imparting a variety of colors to sunlight; and/or other phenomena).

Paul Simons, in an article entitled "Weather Secrets of Miracle at Fátima", states that he believes it possible that some of the optical effects at Fatima may have been caused by a cloud of dust from the Sahara.[30]

Kevin McClure claims that the crowd at Cova da Iria may have been expecting to see signs in the sun, as similar phenomena had been reported in the weeks leading up to the miracle. On this basis he believes that the crowd saw what it wanted to see. But it has been objected that McClure's account fails to explain similar reports of people miles away, who by their own testimony were not even thinking of the event at the time, or the sudden drying of people's sodden, rain-soaked clothes. Kevin McClure stated that he had never seen such a collection of contradictory accounts of a case in any of the research he had done in the previous ten years, although he has not explicitly stated what these contradictions were. [31]

Leo Madigan believes that the various witness reports of a miracle are accurate, however he alleges inconsistency of witnesses, and suggests that astonishment, fear, exaltation and imagination must have played roles in both the observing and the retelling. Madigan likens the experiences to prayer, and considers that the spiritual nature of the phenomenon explains what he describes as the inconsistency of the witnesses.[32]

Author Lisa Schwebel claims that the event was a supernatural extra-sensory phenomenon. Schwebel notes that the solar phenomenon reported at Fátima is not unique - there have been several reported cases of high pitched religious gatherings culminating in the sudden and mysterious appearance of lights in the sky.[33]

It has been argued that the Fátima phenomenon and many UFO sights share a common cause,[34] or even that the phenomenon was an alien craft.[35] see main article: The Fatima UFO Hypothesis

Many years after the events in question, Stanley L. Jaki, a professor of physics at Seton Hall University, New Jersey, Benedictine priest and author of a number of books reconciling science and Catholicism, proposed a unique theory about the supposed miracle. Jaki believes that the event was natural and meteorological in nature, but that the fact the event occurred at the exact time predicted was a miracle.[36]

The event was officially accepted as a miracle by the Roman Catholic Church on 13 October 1930. On 13 October 1951, papal legate Cardinal Tedeschini told the million gathered at Fátima that on 30 October, 31 October, 1 November, and 8 November 1950, Pope Pius XII himself witnessed the miracle of the sun from the Vatican gardens.[37]

Future Episodes / Re: UFOs and Aliens
« on: August 18, 2009, 10:42:59 PM »
I'll post what I want.
As if you have any kind of power over me, you condescending fuck.

Thanks for the compliment. I've seen 5 posts from you today, none with any substance, all condescending

If you like trolling, i'd rather see you do it over at youtube with the other idiot kids.

So this one's for you:

Future Episodes / Re: UFOs and Aliens
« on: August 18, 2009, 10:05:39 PM »
Ok thank you all for explaining your points of view. It sure is interesting to see how people handle this kind of subject ;)

You are right that eyewitness testimonies all by themselves probably do little more than making interesting stories. However, i think they should be seen in the context of the other evidence, such as physical evidence, films, photo's, radar observations, historical accounts, etc. When you do that, a picture emerges of a phenomenon with anomalous properties which has been witnessed and reported by people for as long as we can remember.

Of course the unreliability of witnesses isn't exactly going to help, but that doesn't mean there isn't an actual phenomenon.

Your stance is kindof like the way it was in medieval times: Meteorites (the pieces that make it to Earth) were long ago thought to be cast down as gifts from angels. Others thought the gods were displaying their anger. As late as the 17th Century, many believed they fell from thunderstorms (they were nicknamed "thunderstones"). Many scientists were skeptical that stones could fall from the the clouds or the heavens, and often they simply didn't believe the accounts of people who claimed to have seen such things.

They dismissed accounts of people who saw it happen, perhaps on the exact same grounds as you do now. If the skeptics had their way, we'd still be calling meteorites 'thunderstones' and believe they were gifts from the gods, and dismiss those who say they witnessed a meteorite fall from the sky as a looney, a 'believer', a nutcase.. after all everyone KNEW that there weren't any stones in the sky, therefore they couldn't fall from the sky either. And do you think that eyewitnesses were any more reliable back then than they are now? Still their observations turned out to be correct.

@surhotchaperchlorome, i meant STAY on youtube, not post whatever crap you find there over here ;)

Future Episodes / Re: UFOs and Aliens
« on: August 18, 2009, 09:15:53 PM »
Is that so?

Investigation by proclamation, as they say. One helluva easy way to nullify all available data, including video, radar, multiple corroborating witness testimony, etc.

Could you tell me what this object, photographed, filmed, showing up on 2 F16 radars and observed by literally thousands of people in Belgium in the early 90s is?

Future Episodes / Re: UFOs and Aliens
« on: August 18, 2009, 09:03:32 PM »
You didn't read it, so what makes you conclude it's conspiracy nonsense and arguments from ignorance?

Once again, your methods are typical, and confirm my statements.

Now back to youtube with you! ;)

Pages: [1] 2 3