It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Breaking News on Belgian TV: Famous flying triangle picture is a fake confesses hoaxer

page: 2
12
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 26 2011 @ 01:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by K-PAX-PROT
The below facts have to be taken into account here, they cannot be easily dismissed as irrelevant;Can this person who is claiming their responsibility for the hoax debunk the three main bits of evidence below that point to the confirmation from military sources of something in the sky that night;Are the many witnesses that seen this craft/object/lights part of this hoax too; Until the above questions are addressed and proved by the source claiming hoax or the witnesses come out and either admit or deny involvement with any kind of hoax collaborations it seems for now that this hoax source has not really thought through this hoaxed claim;

Facts below that need addressing and countered by hoax claimant;
1;The witness sightings of it,
2;The radar returns;
3; Radio recordings with the pilots?
edit on 15/07/2010 by K-PAX-PROT because: (no reason given)


These are the points of the case, the picture is irrelevant, hoax or not.




posted on Jul, 26 2011 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by IsaacKoi
I've heard from a colleague on the continent (Jean-Michel Abrassart) that Belgian TV is reporting that the famous UFO photo below (the Petit-Rechain photo of 1990) is a fake and that the person that created it has admitted the hoax.

I expect we'll be hearing more detail about this soon.


I am also very curious indeed how this claim will unfold itself because that photo was indeed very thoroughly investigated by some experts.


One of his friends contacted a local journalist, who published the photograph in a French magazine.
A team under the direction of Professor Marc Acheroy discovered that a triangular shape became visible when overexposing the slide.
After that, the original color slide was further analyzed by Frangois 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.


Later on


Professor Marion's more recent analysis in 2002 used more sophisticated technology.


Source; Leslie Kean’s book called 'UFOs - Generals Pilots and Government Officials Go On The Record'.

My first wild guess is that it could be a very clever disinfo/debunk attempt/attack on Leslie Kean’s book called 'UFOs - Generals Pilots and Government Officials Go On The Record'.
Because she had two chapters about that very interesting Belgian UFO wave back then in that book where under the very thoroughly investigation and quite remarkable results of that photo.

So we wait and see how this case will unfold itself and if my wild guess will be proven absolutly wrong.


edit on 26/7/11 by spacevisitor because: Made some corrections and did some adding



posted on Jul, 26 2011 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by K-PAX-PROT
 


I'm not sure you've understood what's been claimed by the hoaxer as none of those points you made have to be "debunked" before the photo can be labelled a hoax.

The hoax was made four months after the original flap using the genuine accounts and evidence as a springboard for credibility. As the author stated, he did not expect the photo to gain so much notoriety and I can believe this statement. After all, he had the tools and skills to create the object in the photo, why should you not believe him?



posted on Jul, 26 2011 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Goathief
reply to post by K-PAX-PROT
 


I'm not sure you've understood what's been claimed by the hoaxer as none of those points you made have to be "debunked" before the photo can be labelled a hoax.

The hoax was made four months after the original flap using the genuine accounts and evidence as a springboard for credibility. As the author stated, he did not expect the photo to gain so much notoriety and I can believe this statement. After all, he had the tools and skills to create the object in the photo, why should you not believe him?


Well, so do I have the skills and tools. But I don't claim that I hoaxed it. The logic of your argument is ridiculous.

Until he can prove his claim, why should I believe him?



posted on Jul, 26 2011 @ 01:46 PM
link   
Same happened with the loch ness monster pictures.


Best Hoax is one that is let run for a long time, then come clean lol.

PUNKED



posted on Jul, 26 2011 @ 01:49 PM
link   
reply to post by IsaacKoi
 


Thank you for bringing this to our attention. The Belgian Triangle sightings is one of the few cases that have impressed me but now we have the photographer (Patrick) of one of the most well known triangle photos come out and say he hoaxed it. I'm growing more cynical by the day



posted on Jul, 26 2011 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by IsaacKoi
 


Yeah teens do this kind of stuff when they are young but when you realize how far off people can get into UFOs and Aliens you realize that if you are a hoaxer you are dead wrong. Its like just like the people who sell stigmata statues or claim they are recieving messages from Angels. Stop lying...this world already has wayyy too many habitual liars we just don't need anymore.
Bottomline: Don't disrespect or make fun of peoples religion.



posted on Jul, 26 2011 @ 02:53 PM
link   
People often 'confess' to things they never actually did. The police get these all the time, even where serious crimes are concerned. Anyone inclined to be skeptical about witness testimony of UFO sightings, should be just as skeptical when a 'hoaxer' makes his claim, without, apparently, any substantial evidence. Ross



posted on Jul, 26 2011 @ 03:03 PM
link   
Oh well.

Another one bites the dust.



posted on Jul, 26 2011 @ 03:55 PM
link   
reply to post by spacevisitor
 
If the image is a hoax, he did it off the back of the wave of sightings.

Something unusual happened back then. I wonder if it was a Project Palladium-type exercise or something more unusual?



posted on Jul, 27 2011 @ 12:53 AM
link   
I cannot imagine myself that all those experts who investigated the original slide of that photo so thoroughly could not have recognized that if it was indeed the case that that photo was a hoax.

Here is for instance the investigation rapport of Prof. Meessen, it’s in France so I also cannot read it and I did not find it in English, but you can see how it was tested by several different methods.

www.meessen.net...


Originally posted by Kandinsky
Something unusual happened back then. I wonder if it was a Project Palladium-type exercise or something more unusual?


I really don’t know what a Project Palladium-type exercise is Kandinsky, I thought you meant some sort of projection techniques but I think that is not what you meant.
It was in my opinion no doubt a something more unusual happening, but an Alien one.

edit on 27/7/11 by spacevisitor because: Made some corrections and did some adding and some stupid mistakes



posted on Jul, 27 2011 @ 01:48 AM
link   
reply to post by spacevisitor
 
Hiya Space. I've read the translation of the Meesen article you linked. If the image is demonstrated to be a fake, Monsieur Meesen will feel the cold sweat of embarrassment. Time will tell.

I haven't ruled out a Project Palladium-type tech because no pilots ever saw an object. They followed radar. According to Cashman, the object on radar executed manoeuvres that were superior to ours (speed, turns, acceleration etc) but still within the bounds of physics.

Whether a Next-Gen Palladium tech can spoof radar returns and demonstrate realistic flight-characteristics is beyond our 'need-to-know.'


This is why the Belgian Wave remains fascinating...many explanations and little certainty.



posted on Jul, 27 2011 @ 01:58 AM
link   
Odd that this should come out twenty years after the fact.
My question is, why now? Why not ten years ago or earlier?
This would be like Stanton Friedman coming out now stating he made up the Betty and Barney Hill case.
Like all things these days in this field, I'm suspicious.



posted on Jul, 27 2011 @ 02:08 AM
link   
Very strange, there must be a bit of cash going his way..

Not that it makes the slightest odds as his photo was after the event, I like many on here have actually seen one of these 'triangles' first hand and I'm no hoaxer or liar (I'm not saying I know what it was!!).

Thanks Issac for the heads up, will be interesting to see how his pans out.



posted on Jul, 27 2011 @ 03:00 AM
link   
That's depressing. Though I always thought the shape of the object in this photo looked off. Can't imagine why he would claim this was a hoax unless it really was, but I want to hear how he hoaxed it.



posted on Jul, 27 2011 @ 03:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by cripmeister
reply to post by IsaacKoi
 


Thank you for bringing this to our attention. The Belgian Triangle sightings is one of the few cases that have impressed me but now we have the photographer (Patrick) of one of the most well known triangle photos come out and say he hoaxed it. I'm growing more cynical by the day


No reason to get all cynical over this, I and many others have always thought this photograph was fake...
That being said, Triangle crafts have been spotted way before this hoaxed photographed. Again, I and many others have seen the Triangle craft back in the 70's... Plus I'm an artist, I know every detail of it.... The real Triangle crafts have no lights and move slowly in the air like a boat on water.



posted on Jul, 27 2011 @ 07:58 AM
link   
It seems that president of COBEPS also agrees with the admission and makes distinction between the wave and the photo itself:
www.rtl.be...



posted on Jul, 27 2011 @ 08:44 AM
link   
what about the video?





eta....

was that taken from here.... www.ufocasebook.com...

edit on 27/7/11 by mcrom901 because: waffling issues



posted on Jul, 27 2011 @ 09:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aliensun
Having seen--as I've said many times--a triangle low, slow and silent, I can live with this revelation, true or not. I mean, if the US air force can continually tell us for half a century that UFOs don't exist and cover up their parachute dummies, bogus study projects, super-secret SR-21s, U-2s and F-177As, why not?

So the photograph is a hoax? What about the rest of the affair, the personal sightings of it, the radar returns and the radio recordings with the pilots? Trash it all, it takes nothing away from the fact that hundreds of triangle sightings have been witnessed (mostly in the US and UK).

Yet, it remains the triangles exist and they probably are the results of our trying to duplicate the systems of genuine UFOs, and they are the replacement for the shuttle as well as other vehicles for space travel and most major military aircraft. There simply is no better explanation.

note: the triangles exist in your head, not mine. don't speak for me.

my opinion: just another ufo hoaxer. nothing new. irrational thought and pranksters are a common occurrence, as common as anything else that's common. i think the fact that animals display levy flight patterns when looking for food is far more interesting than this. next page pls.
edit on 27-7-2011 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 28 2011 @ 01:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by mcrom901
what about the video?


eta....

was that taken from here.... www.ufocasebook.com...


Thanks for posting this one mcrom901,
after some searching I found this one in English.




new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join