It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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)
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.
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.
Professor Marion's more recent analysis in 2002 used more sophisticated technology.
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?
Originally posted by Kandinsky
Something unusual happened back then. I wonder if it was a Project Palladium-type exercise or something more unusual?
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
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.