Black Triangles

[fitzbew88]

I am most interested in the sightings of "large" triangles...I believe these were the focus of the NIDS study. I can't recall whether they included "small" triangles in their study.

Regarding the military/gov't theory:
1) If secrecy is so important regarding these vehicles, why are they being "deployed" out in the open with lights? And yet not otherwise being discussed?
2) What military purpose would a stealth blimp serve, that is not already better served by our other known stealth assets?
3) Where are they being kept? There aren't that many hangars in the world that can hold a football-field sized blimp.
4) If these vehicles were deployed (even as prototypes) in 1980, shouldn't we know something publicly about them by now? It's been almost thirty years. I'm skeptical of our government's ability to keep a secret like this.

If these are really military/gov't, why do they act like they don't care if they are being seen?

And then there are the "old" triangle sightings from the 60s and earlier...it's hard for me to believe the gov't was flying stealth blimps around in the 60's while simultaneously struggling with U2s.

If this is a military/gov't project, wouldn't it likely have been used in either Persian Gulf War? I am not aware of any such assertion.

Although I long favored the military/gov't theory in regards to the large triangles, I am growing more and more hesitant about it.

[Tom Levine]

Originally Posted by fitzbew88

I am most interested in the sightings of "large" triangles...I believe these were the focus of the NIDS study. I can't recall whether they included "small" triangles in their study..

The size of the triangles have been relatively consistent during this modern 25 year flap, and I do not believe that the 1000 plus triangle reports, which NIDS studied, included smaller prospective craft. We're talking 1 to 2 football fields across.

There may be smaller triangles, but that's not what I think of with regard to this phenomenon. AEREON did in fact develop a prototype alongside the Dynairship II called the WASP, which is a smaller version, most likely having to do with surveillence missions. No mystery here though. We've been using smaller unmanned aircraft for quite some time, even if the WASP might use a more unconventional airship design. So, the triangle mystery is categorically a large triangle phenomenon.

Originally Posted by fitzbew88

Regarding the military/gov't theory:
1) If secrecy is so important regarding these vehicles, why are they being "deployed" out in the open with lights? And yet not otherwise being discussed?.

Yes. I have no idea. That's part of the reason why NIDS changed their findings in 2004. It's a very, very good question, and it does not appear to conform to a typical DOD "coming out" party on their black-ops technology.

That said, I don't feel the same way that NIDS does, that this bolsters the argument that it is NOT a stealth blimp. For me, and I know many might disagree, but for me, it's two separate issues.

The first issue is the ship itself, the physical and other data compiled, which in my opinion, conforms to the nature and history of airships. That is what the original 2002 NIDS report focused on, and I think that report is very compelling.

The second issue, is the deployment strategy...the open deployment of (potentially) a currently classified aircraft. It is frankly, a second, very compelling mystery.

Some have speculated that the answer could be a type of psychological experiment, if you will, on a large population center. I'm not sure I can say that the evidence supports this speculation, but it certainly is an unsolved question. Again, I don't know what the purpose of the strategy of deployment is, but I don't think it should discount the other evidence which supports the possibility that these could be stealth blimps, LTA, or hybrid airships.

Originally Posted by fitzbew88

2) What military purpose would a stealth blimp serve, that is not already better served by our other known stealth assets?

Cargo and heavy-lifting.

Imagine the military benefits to being able to transport: "1-2 million pounds half-way around the world in a week...", as quoted in DefenseIndustryDaily.Com. So the benefits of LTA (lighter than aircraft) blimps, or Airships, are not uncommon discussion-points amongst those in the Defense Industry. These are real ships, with real defense contracts.

Originally Posted by fitzbew88

3) Where are they being kept? There aren't that many hangars in the world that can hold a football-field sized blimp.

It's a good question. I haven't investigated that aspect of this mystery quite yet. I'd say that someone probably has, so there might be information floating around. I'll defer to someone else to explore possible hiding places for a football sized blimp.

Originally Posted by fitzbew88

4) If these vehicles were deployed (even as prototypes) in 1980, shouldn't we know something publicly about them by now? It's been almost thirty years. I'm skeptical of our government's ability to keep a secret like this.

I respect your skepticism, but I'm not sure I'd agree that it is unusual to entertain the notion that the US military can hide a black-ops classified aircraft from public knowledge for more than 30 years. Call me naive, but this issue, in and of itself, does not create skepticism for me personally. Can the US hide a large aircraft from public knowledge for over 30 years? Oh yeah. You bet!

Originally Posted by fitzbew88

If these are really military/gov't, why do they act like they don't care if they are being seen?

Similar to your prior point above. My short answer: I don't know, but that doesn't mean that they are not military aircraft.

Originally Posted by fitzbew88

And then there are the "old" triangle sightings from the 60s and earlier...it's hard for me to believe the gov't was flying stealth blimps around in the 60's while simultaneously struggling with U2s.

I kind of doubt that they were also.

The older sightings could be anything...Blimps, ET's, ET-craft from which we reverse-engineered, reverse-engineered craft which came from ET's, Airplanes, weather baloons, atmospheric conditions. Who knows...

You see, I see this as 2 different phenomenon.

The older sightings are not as well documented as the modern sightings between 1980 and 2004, nor were they considered as a part of the NIDS study.

So, I can sink my teeth into the NIDS study, photographs, videos, radar evidence, thousands of reported sightings and testimony, Belgium, Arizona, Illinois, et al. I can look at all that evidence, and come to a reasonable conclusion on at least SOME questions of this mystery. That conclusion is simply that based on everything we know, Airships seems to be the most logical answer, even though there are questions that still remain.

Originally Posted by fitzbew88

If this is a military/gov't project, wouldn't it likely have been used in either Persian Gulf War? I am not aware of any such assertion.

Although I long favored the military/gov't theory in regards to the large triangles, I am growing more and more hesitant about it.

I'm not a military expert, not a black-ops expert, so I couldn't give you any insight into what reasons there might have been for not using these craft, assuming that they are classified LTA. One common-sense possibility might be that they aren't yet ready for full, military deployment.

[fitzbew88]

Originally Posted by fitzbew88

2) What military purpose would a stealth blimp serve, that is not already better served by our other known stealth assets?

But..if this is a "stealth" blimp, the intent must be to use it in denied airspace at night. For cargo or even troop delivery, the size, limited speed, and low service ceiling of these craft (assuming the use of technology close to existing known technology) would make such uses highly impractical.

Assuming a maximum speed of 150mph and the need to be back in the hangar before dawn(!), the range would be much less than 1000 miles on a 12 hour night.

If the environment is permissive (we have control of the air), then we don't need a stealth blimp. We can get lots of cargo in very quickly using existing assets. (500 tons is only about 6-7 Abrams tanks...plus we need to get fuel in there.)

What about deploying small numbers of troops covertly? Perhaps, but then why would the blimp need to be so huge?

Reconnaissance? It seems that our technology in this area is getting smaller, not bigger.

In the face of my own ignorance, I don't know what to think. I don't like the mil/gov theory, I don't like ET/OI and yet "something" is clearly happening.

Some theorize that UFOs are some unknown intelligently-driven phenomenon that masks itself appropriately depending on the culture of the times...perhaps we are in the triangle era! ;-)

[Tom Levine]

...And of course, by the way, I completely respect and appreciate a differing point of view on the subject...

I welcome assumption hole-poking!!!

Hey, I found THIS though, which is really neat. This guy Joseph (some website article from 2002) came to the same conclusion that I came to, pointing to the same evidence out there. One interesting thing he points out is the idea of requiring aircraft refeuling. In a previous post, we learned about a most recent sighting in Northeastern Arizona, with multiple witnesses. One of the witnesses claimed to have seen multiple aircrat refeuling the black triangle.

Here's another "stealth blimp" theory page

Here's an excellent read from nationalufocenter.com regarding the airships theory.

ON TERMINOLOGY:

I've noticed that the term, "stealth blimp", is most often used by neophites (like myself), or as a term in the paranormal realm to describe the black triangle as a military aircraft.

HEre's some other, probably a more appropriate terms to describe these alleged aircraft, and probably more condusive to research in the defense industry realm:

AIRSHIPS
LTA (LIGHTER THAN AIRCRAFT)
DIRIGIBLE
BOUYANT AIRCRAFT
RIGID AIRSHIPS
NON-RIGID AIRSHIPS
SEMI-RIGID AIRSHIPS
HYBRID AIRSHIPS
HIGH-ALTITUDE AIRSHIPS
THERMAL AIRSHIPS
LOCKHEED MARTIN'S DARPA WALRUS PROJECT
P-791
SKYCAT
AEROSCRAFT

[Tom Levine]

And just in case you think I'm convinced with certaintly, let me have this quote poke holes at my own theory about Airships...

THIS is a discussion taking place concerning the validity, or lack of validity, as to the argument that the Belgium UFO was a secret European military aircraft...Enjoy at my expense

"There is a vast amount of data available. Unfortunately, your correspondents seem ignorant of it. Of course the possibility of a secret aircraft was given the greatest consideration. This was before the interceptors were launched as well as during the months that followed. The sightings began six months before the interception attempt, and continued for several months after. Nobody suggested a European craft, simply because all involved knew very well that no craft with the performance parameters of the UFO was being produced in Europe. Speculation about secret craft focused on American airplanes, particularly the Stealth fighters. That's because investigators -- unlike your correspondents -- knew what they were talking about. Ten years have elapsed since the events in question. That's a very long time in aviation technology. So where is this fantastic European craft that ten years ago vastly outperformed the F-16? If only your correspondents would read the details of the intercept, they would appreciate the absurdity of the "secret aircraft" explanation.

"...Here the rush to accept an explanation for a UFO case that is at odds with the facts and common sense is coming from within the "research community." Historically, this sort of bunk emanated from Project Bluebook. You people almost make me nostalgic for the old days of "weather balloon" and "Planet Venus." Thanks to Bob Durant MUFON. Editor's Note: I wish to point out that I heard similar stories from NATO pilots indicating the Belgian triangles were our secret aircraft with special radars. It is certainly possible that the Belgian government was kept out of the loop at the time and NATO pilots were given false info. It certainly could be UFOs? "

Cheers !
t

[fitzbew88]

Originally Posted by tomlevine1

...And of course, by the way, I completely respect and appreciate a differing point of view on the subject...

I welcome assumption hole-poking!!!

We are not so far off (really) on our point of views. They (the big triangles) may very well be gov/mil. I can stretch my assumptions only modestly and find plausible explanations for many of my reservations about the gov/mil theory.

A couple of examples:
1) Maybe they're not LTA at all...perhaps they have advanced propulsion and are not limited by traditional mass/altitude/speed limitations of airships. Maybe they weigh as much as a battleship.
2) I can't think of much use for stealth cargo delivery, but perhaps these ships are designed to deliver munitions or host some other weapon system that requires a large platform. (Charged particle beams?)
3) Reports (to the best of my knowledge) are mostly nocturnal; perhaps the craft are not used strictly at night but simply are invisible during the day due to advanced camouflage technology (fiber optics are something). Perhaps they are more visible at night!
4) Perhaps we don't need large facilities (hangars) to contain them; maybe we park them out in the open with the camouflage technology activated. Or maybe we just deflate 'em!

I really wish we could "catch" one on the ground (or in flight) on Google Earth or similar. "Small" triangular (delta-shaped) craft have been caught on the ground in Britain but nothing like these hovering behemoths that we are discussing. Seems like if they are out there and "just" LTA ships, they ought to really be obvious. It's not hard to find a B2.

If these really are gov/mil, what is the big secret? The B2 was on public display before it even went into operational status!

[Tom Levine]

Originally Posted by fitzbew88

But..if this is a "stealth" blimp, the intent must be to use it in denied airspace at night. For cargo or even troop delivery, the size, limited speed, and low service ceiling of these craft (assuming the use of technology close to existing known technology) would make such uses highly impractical.

Assuming a maximum speed of 150mph and the need to be back in the hangar before dawn(!), the range would be much less than 1000 miles on a 12 hour night.

If the environment is permissive (we have control of the air), then we don't need a stealth blimp. We can get lots of cargo in very quickly using existing assets. (500 tons is only about 6-7 Abrams tanks...plus we need to get fuel in there.)

What about deploying small numbers of troops covertly? Perhaps, but then why would the blimp need to be so huge?

Reconnaissance? It seems that our technology in this area is getting smaller, not bigger.

In the face of my own ignorance, I don't know what to think. I don't like the mil/gov theory, I don't like ET/OI and yet "something" is clearly happening.

Some theorize that UFOs are some unknown intelligently-driven phenomenon that masks itself appropriately depending on the culture of the times...perhaps we are in the triangle era! ;-)

Here's the problem:

The idea of using military Airships for mass cargo and freight, is not my idea, or even part of a paranormal field of inquiry. It is fact. There are multi-million dollar defense contracts right now, and there are multiple manufacturers building prototypes and moving forward with this technology, including Lockheed Martin (links were provided in a previous post).

We can talk about why it is or is not of benefit. If one were to project forward into the future, an argument could be raised that the US Military's global role can have a lot more to do with nimble deployment, than large nuclear weapons. In other words, having the ability to pick up and drop a massive brigaide of men, supplies, and weaponry, in an expediant fashion, could prove very useful to a global policing machine, which is possibly what the US role is leading to in the near future. I'm speculating here, but the point I make is that airships can play a major role in fast global deployment on a very large scale.

I think it's worthwhile to factually accept that blimps are at the least, being seriously considered as of use to the military. They're building them. They're funding them. They're spending millions of dollars, at the least, "considering" them. My reference about shipping millions of pounds worth of cargo, didn't come from me. It wasn't my opinion. It was a quote from defenseindustrynews.com

Links:
AIRSHIPS MAKE A COMEBACK - DEFENSEDAILYNEWS.COM

RETURN OF THE NAVY BLIMPS DEFENSEINDUSTRYDAILY.COM

GIANT BLIMP ON THE RISE DEFENSETECH.ORG

AIRSHIPS CONSIDERED FOR DEFENSE ARSENAL - SPACEDAILY.COM

WALRUS HUNTED TO EXTINCTION BY CONGRESS, DARPA? - DEFENSEINDUSTRYDAILY.COM

DARPA - WALRUS COMPANY INFORMATION HANDOUT

So, I'm hard-pressed to back away from the notion that military airships exist, or will exist. But, are they black triangles? That's the issue.

[fitzbew88]

Originally Posted by tomlevine1

Here's the problem:

The idea of using military Airships for mass cargo and freight, is not my idea, or even part of a paranormal field of inquiry. It is fact. There are multi-million dollar defense contracts right now, and there are multiple manufacturers building prototypes and moving forward with this technology, including Lockheed Martin (links were provided in a previous post).

Oh! I don't dispute that! (Pardon me for not being clearer.) But I don't think these modern "drawing board" ideas are good evidence for the BTs being gov/mil. As a matter of fact, they may be evidence that the BTs are *not* gov/mil. If the large BTs are LTA gov/mil craft, why do they need the Walrus-types? The BTs have been around for thirty years.

Originally Posted by tomlevine1

We can talk about why it is or is not of benefit. If one were to project forward into the future, an argument could be raised that the US Military's global role can have a lot more to do with nimble deployment, than large nuclear weapons. In other words, having the ability to pick up and drop a massive brigaide of men, supplies, and weaponry, in an expediant fashion, could prove very useful to a global policing machine, which is possibly what the US role is leading to in the near future. I'm speculating here, but the point I make is that airships can play a major role in fast global deployment on a very large scale.

If they are a stealthy military force delivery system, and the thirty-year old technology they employ is similar to what is on the drawing board today (per your links) then I'm not sure I would use the words "fast" or "nimble". If I needed to get a company somewhere in a hurry, I can't imagine putting them in a blimp. Now, if they needed to be there late next week...a blimp is the way to go.

One of these reports discussed these craft carrying 500-1000 tons. As far as modern military operations, this is not very much. A single C17 can carry 85 tons, and all it needs is a short runway and it's going to get on-site a lot quicker than an airship.

Originally Posted by tomlevine1

I think it's worthwhile to factually accept that blimps are at the least, being seriously considered as of use to the military. They're building them. They're funding them. They're spending millions of dollars, at the least, "considering" them. My reference about shipping millions of pounds worth of cargo, didn't come from me. It wasn't my opinion. It was a quote from defenseindustrynews.com

Yes, I agree. The modern military is clearly very interested in using airships to deliver cargo, reconnaissance, etc.. I apologize for not being clearer. My feeling is that gov/mil airships don't really "fit" what we surmise about the triangles.

Originally Posted by tomlevine1

So, I'm hard-pressed to back away from the notion that military airships exist, or will exist. But, are they black triangles? That's the issue.

And I don't think you should back away from gov/mil airships in the future.

But, are they the black triangles? I think your careful study of what's on the drawing board of today almost proves that they are *not* military airships. Perhaps some other type of mil/gov craft, just not airships.

[Tom Levine]

Originally Posted by fitzbew88

I think your careful study of what's on the drawing board of today almost proves that they are *not* military airships. Perhaps some other type of mil/gov craft, just not airships.

Well, we both completely agree that they ARE SOMETHING...

Let's turn the tables a bit, FITZBEW88, before you make my head explode. I challenge you! Post your stuff. What do you got? What are they? Are they ET craft from Zeta Reticuli? A different military craft? Venus? Weather Anomoly? Buckaroo Bonzai from the across the 8th dimension? I am completely open, but I want links, pics, videos, experts, and any other data you can find which would stimulate the topic beyond airships.

Lay down a case for me to chew on. I'm listening.

Actually, I'm not listening...I'm putting my daughter to bed...But I'll be back tommorow...Nitey-Nite!

[mjw]

These links are a little dated but I thought some might find them interesting - TR-3B and TR-3B physics