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.
Originally posted by Foundryman
reply to post by FireMoon
Too bad the Belgium triangle is a fake.
Originally posted by FireMoon
There were hundreds of sightings reported in Belgium and the photo you are talking about, the so called faker has singularly failed to re-create the one he claims to have faked even though, he has been asked to by numerous people.
Originally posted by Druscilla
Originally posted by FireMoon
There were hundreds of sightings reported in Belgium and the photo you are talking about, the so called faker has singularly failed to re-create the one he claims to have faked even though, he has been asked to by numerous people.
Why would anyone invest their time and money into recreating a fake just to prove they did so in the beginning if they're not going to get paid to do so?
Dangle some incentive and you'll get results.
It's one of the reasons people fake UFOs.
Other reasons include doing it just for kicks, attention, advancing interest in a topic they 'CLAIM' zero interest in but are serious obsessive closet cases, delusional self validation, and many others, including no discernible reason at all just as doing it for kicks.
Originally posted by FireMoon
reply to post by Druscilla
Frankly that's ridiculous reasoning. The critical faculties of the sceptics have a strange habit of flying straight out of the window the moment something conforms to their own prejudices. One could just as easily say, the so called faker was paid to say he faked it by other interested parties, you know, the sort stuff Philip Klass used to do. One assumes the guy was paid for the story about faking it, so why didn't they ask him to re-create it or, were they simply not interested in the reality of the situation simply , happy to publish a story that would generate publicity and hits on their own website?
Originally posted by FireMoon
reply to post by Druscilla
Frankly that's ridiculous reasoning. The critical faculties of the sceptics have a strange habit of flying straight out of the window the moment something conforms to their own prejudices. One could just as easily say, the so called faker was paid to say he faked it by other interested parties, you know, the sort stuff Philip Klass used to do. One assumes the guy was paid for the story about faking it, so why didn't they ask him to re-create it or, were they simply not interested in the reality of the situation simply , happy to publish a story that would generate publicity and hits on their own website?
I'd also remind people, this thread is NOT about the so called Belgian fake photograph and I will take a dim view of any more postings about it and immediately ask for the mods to remove any posts that try to derail the purpose of this thread which is to discuss a wholly different sighting and a totally different one from Belgium.edit on 31-7-2013 by FireMoon because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by FireMoon
reply to post by wmd_2008
Sorry, I haven;t clue what you are talking about. in the video you have posted he 's talking about the craft he saw close up which disappeared. He then saw what he took to be the back end of a huge craft heading away from them that was not the same as the craft he saw close up. I'd try paying more attention if I were you.
Originally posted by FireMoon
reply to post by wmd_2008
Sorry, I haven;t clue what you are talking about. in the video you have posted he 's talking about the craft he saw close up which disappeared. He then saw what he took to be the back end of a huge craft heading away from them that was not the same as the craft he saw close up. I'd try paying more attention if I were you.