Black Triangles

[fitzbew88]

Originally Posted by tomlevine1

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.

Dude, I nearly spit my coffee out laughing! Don't let your head explode! This community (people who care about topics like these) need your brain, especially folks like you who are open-minded.

And please don't read too much certainty into my postings, as I am just guessing as to the nature of this phenomenon. (Just like everybody else, I think.) The BTs may very well be gov/mil airships, I only need to stretch my imagination modestly to make it fit.

But for the sake of discussion, let's theorize that they are not gov/mil airships, and try to find some other theory that fits these assumptions:

1) The BTs are shockingly huge, hundreds of yards ("blot out the sky" big).
2) They are manufactured by an intelligence; they're machines.
3) They can be either pitch-black dark or can have bright lights.
4) They can move really slow and hover.
5) Around 1980, they were either in production or at least advanced prototype...they were flying around in 1980 and continue into 2000+.
6) They are stealth vehicles (do not generate a panic in FAA control towers), and do not conform to FAA aircraft lighting patterns. They are used under cover of darkness, whatever their purpose may be.
7) If Earth-manufactured, the builder has decided to keep them as secret as possible; there is a vested interest in the BTs not being publicly studied.
They exist in small numbers (not fleets).
9) They have flown throughout the US and also the UK (at least).
10) They have not yet appeared in our military history: we have no knowledge of them being used in Grenada, Panama, either Persian Gulf War, etc..

You know, honestly, I've looked at these assumptions for a few minutes and I can't really formulate a theory that sounds reasonable to me.

Frankly, I'm as puzzled now as when we began this conversation.

One thought though: if they are gov/mil-related...they are used for something that I think will collectively surprise us. Whatever the purpose, it is something that the mil/gov folks believe needs a level of secrecy dwarfing the B2. Presumably, these craft are big because they *need* to be big. Could they be a Cold War-inspired launching platform for some terrible weapon? Perhaps it grossly violates the SALT agreements. The B2 delivers nukes...what could be worse than that?

[Noanswers]

The following report comes from
http://www.ufologie.net

The article underneath has been published in the daily newspaper The Echo, Basildon, Essex, UK, on March 6, 2007.

Man Claims He Saw UFO
By Mikarla Marsden

A man has claimed he saw a UFO while driving through Basildon early yesterday morning.

Graham Hearson said: "I saw flashing red lights in the sky. It was literally above my head."

Mr Hearson said the mystery object looked like a triangle or a square that had its sides pushed on.

He had been driving home from work in London to Southend about 5am when he claims the craft hovered silently past, just after the A130 turn-off to Wickford, and continued on to Benfleet.

Police had not received any other sightings.

A spokesman for London Southend Airport said no flights had been operating at that time and no unusual aircraft were in the area.

If you think you saw the UFO, contact The Echo on 01268 469 409

When I read this, it raised for me a question I believe germain to our ongoing discussion of black triangles as some form of govt black project. While one could make the case that in major sightings of the triangles a program could be put in place to cover-up any radar locks by local airfield employees, are we to believe that this (coordinated cover up) is happening every time some poor (or fortunate, you be the judge) person is driving at night?
Or, and I'm catching up on the links Tom-this may be addressed, is there supposedly some form of stealth that renders them "unseeable" by conventional radar?
It would seem to me (but what do I know) that most cases of black triangles are of a much more mundane nature than Belgium or the Phoenix Lights and if we cannot assign some sort of invisbility technology to them, that some must be of a non-human nature.
It simply doesn't stand to reason that with the frequency of flights/reports (check out Peter Davenport's reports) that there could be a program in place to silence that many Air Traffic Controllers. When you get too many people involved in a secret, it ain't a secret for long.

[Tom Levine]

Originally Posted by fitzbew88

Dude, I nearly spit my coffee out laughing! Don't let your head explode! This community (people who care about topics like these) need your brain, especially folks like you who are open-minded.

And please don't read too much certainty into my postings, as I am just guessing as to the nature of this phenomenon. (Just like everybody else, I think.) The BTs may very well be gov/mil airships, I only need to stretch my imagination modestly to make it fit.

But for the sake of discussion, let's theorize that they are not gov/mil airships, and try to find some other theory that fits these assumptions:

1) The BTs are shockingly huge, hundreds of yards ("blot out the sky" big).
2) They are manufactured by an intelligence; they're machines.
3) They can be either pitch-black dark or can have bright lights.
4) They can move really slow and hover.
5) Around 1980, they were either in production or at least advanced prototype...they were flying around in 1980 and continue into 2000+.
6) They are stealth vehicles (do not generate a panic in FAA control towers), and do not conform to FAA aircraft lighting patterns. They are used under cover of darkness, whatever their purpose may be.
7) If Earth-manufactured, the builder has decided to keep them as secret as possible; there is a vested interest in the BTs not being publicly studied.
They exist in small numbers (not fleets).
9) They have flown throughout the US and also the UK (at least).
10) They have not yet appeared in our military history: we have no knowledge of them being used in Grenada, Panama, either Persian Gulf War, etc..

You know, honestly, I've looked at these assumptions for a few minutes and I can't really formulate a theory that sounds reasonable to me.

Frankly, I'm as puzzled now as when we began this conversation.

One thought though: if they are gov/mil-related...they are used for something that I think will collectively surprise us. Whatever the purpose, it is something that the mil/gov folks believe needs a level of secrecy dwarfing the B2. Presumably, these craft are big because they *need* to be big. Could they be a Cold War-inspired launching platform for some terrible weapon? Perhaps it grossly violates the SALT agreements. The B2 delivers nukes...what could be worse than that?

LOL !

item 6: I'd add, to item 6 (STEALTHY) above, that they appear to be undetectable by radar, with the exception of the infamous Belgium incident in which the BT was tracked by radar.

item 11: You missed a big one, and that is "open deployment", meaning that they appear to be seen over major population centers and interstates, without any concern of being noticed.

item 12: "mass sightings", that they have been seen consistently over the last 25 years, by thousand and thousands of witnesses, many of them as a part a group sighting event.

item 13: "corroborating evidence", that the UFO reports, the videos, the photographs, all seem to fit the same, consistent pattern, MOST of the time.

On your last paragraph, I was thinking of another possibility, but I'll post it later.

Cheers! Great list.

[fitzbew88]

Originally Posted by tomlevine1

LOL !

item 6: I'd add, to item 6 (STEALTHY) above, that they appear to be undetectable by radar, with the exception of the infamous Belgium incident in which the BT was tracked by radar.

Do you think that event is within the "scope" of what we are talking about? My understanding is that there was no intimation that the craft associated with that event was very large. But otherwise, yes, I'm not aware of any of these BTs generating a radar-event.

Now, I do recall some Belgium policemen describing something big as a house...was that related to the F16 radar event? And my failing memory seems to recall they described it as a cube.

Originally Posted by tomlevine1

item 11: You missed a big one, and that is "open deployment", meaning that they appear to be seen over major population centers and interstates, without any concern of being noticed.

Here, I would only jibber-jabber over syntax. If they are gov/mil, I would not say they are in "open deployment". Their deployment is still very much secret (closed); they are just seen occasionally out in the open.

[Tom Levine]

Originally Posted by fitzbew88

Do you think that event is within the "scope" of what we are talking about? My understanding is that there was no intimation that the craft associated with that event was very large. But otherwise, yes, I'm not aware of any of these BTs generating a radar-event.

Now, I do recall some Belgium policemen describing something big as a house...was that related to the F16 radar event? And my failing memory seems to recall they described it as a cube.



Here, I would only jibber-jabber over syntax. If they are gov/mil, I would not say they are in "open deployment". Their deployment is still very much secret (closed); they are just seen occasionally out in the open.

Item 1: My main point, is that wouldn't a "stealth" craft have to be undetectable by radar, simply by definition. I'd consider the B-2 stealthy, for example, because it cannot in fact be detected by radar to a degree. The Belgium Triangle as the exception to that consistent statement about triangles (assuming the radar evidence cannot be explained). I would definitely include the statement about the Belgium UFO. It may or may not be the same craft, but it's still an integral part of the BT phenomenon in most people's minds.

Item 2: Yup. jibber-jabber I'm open to a different term to describe this behavior.

[fitzbew88]

Originally Posted by tomlevine1

Item 1: My main point, is that wouldn't a "stealth" craft have to be undetectable by radar, simply by definition. I'd consider the B-2 stealthy, for example, because it cannot in fact be detected by radar to a degree. The Belgium Triangle as the exception to that consistent statement about triangles (assuming the radar evidence cannot be explained). I would definitely include the statement about the Belgium UFO. It may or may not be the same craft, but it's still an integral part of the BT phenomenon in most people's minds.

The thing that makes me squirm about including the Belgium/F16 incident in our scope is that the craft in question was clearly high-performance. Very fast, drastic changes of direction, etc.. I'm loathe to include it, because I don't want to assume such high performance with the big BTs.

Also, I can't find any indication that the Belgium wave included "big" BTs. The descriptions I've been able to find (by no means have I done a comprehensive search) describe only modestly-sized craft. They don't seem to be "blot out the sky" big. I can't find reference to any reports of objects that would be much larger than a B2 (which, believe it or not has a 60-yard wingspan).

Regarding the issue of performance...the 2000 Illinois sighting included a report that the craft relocated six miles in only a few seconds. But the way the observer determined the performance is "edgy". The police officer saw the craft at one location from inside the vehicle, then he got out of his vehicle and was astonished to see it had apparently moved six miles. He did not actually see it move.

The other reports from that night describe the craft moving methodically.

Then again, I don't want to ignore inconvenient facts.

So, in summary, I guess I am asking: For purposes of making assumptions around which we can wrap a good theory, do we want to include high-performance small triangles (Belgium)? And do we want to include an assumption of high-performance (speed)?

Originally Posted by tomlevine1

Item 2: Yup. jibber-jabber I'm open to a different term to describe this behavior.

I've changed my mind about the "open deployment" thing, having given it more thought. I think you are trying to make the point that the craft are deployed in areas that the "owners" must know that they are being seen.

As far as I know, the only thing we haven't hammered out in this semi-academic exercise is whether to include an assumption "coping" with the smaller high-performance triangles. My own inclination is to leave them out; instinctively, I think they are "horses of a different color".

[Tom Levine]

It looks like they've come back to Illinois:

NEW TRIANGLE SIGHTING IN ILLINOIS, 10-20-06

[Tom Levine]

Listen to Detective Mark Lopinot provide you with his testimony of the Illinois sighting of 1-5-2000. It may seem like mundane testimony, not very exciting, but all the key elements of this phenomenon are mentioned here. Listen to the similarity to what you might have heard from witnesses who had seen the Phoenix sighting in 1997. Earlier in this thread, I posted a current sighting from January of 2007. Read that testimony, and analyze the consistency between the two.

Here is a picture re-enactment of the officers description of the object, along with a brief description:



"... Illustration of lights aboard UFO as described by witness. Three amber lights in top row, two in bottom. Purplish tinge seen at times. Lights could be likened to seeing a point light source through rain water covered glass, resulting in a kind of :movement" of the light. The five lights never changed their positions relative to one another..."

[Tom Levine]

Here is a quote from MUFON's analysis of the event:

"...These witnesses provide us with enough data to project the flight path of the object as it traveled over the Southern Illinois area (figure 6). It apparently came from the northeast and traveled slowly to the southwest over Highland then south to Summerfield. It then turned and moved towards the northwest and quickly made a flat turn and accelerated to the southwest. It traveled approximately 1 mile north of Scott Air Force Base and slowed as it passed over Shiloh. It then continued to the southwest over the town of Millstadt. From there, it turned to the northwest. Shortly thereafter, it veered to the northeast and apparently gained altitude before leaving the area..."

This is a case where we have a specific flight path identified, and yet, somehow this craft did not appear on radar. Unless the radar evidence is being with-held or hidden, this craft is a stealth craft, no matter who built it.

[Tom Levine]

Originally Posted by fitzbew88

I've changed my mind about the "open deployment" thing, having given it more thought.

Sorry. I'm going with NIDS report 2 on this one. While I'm not with them on their final conclusion, I do agree that you can't walk away from the UFO's "open deployment". After reading their report a second time, I'm back on the "open deployment" thing. That's what NIDS calls it. They're smarter than me. The BT phenomenon DEFINITELY includes "open deployment":

"...The trend of open deployment as described in this report is not consistent with secret operation of an advanced DoD aircraft. For example, crude examination of the (anecdotally derived) patterns of deployment of previously developed DoD stealth aircraft programs, including the F-117 and the B-2 aircraft, show that the pattern of deployment of unacknowledged F-117 and B-2 aircraft, prior to their acknowledgement by DoD, is different from the patterns for the Flying Triangles. Prior to acknowledgement of the F-117 and B-2 aircraft, only rare night time sightings occurred in the sparsely populated sections of Nevada, California and a few other states (see F-117 and B-2 in 12). Flying at low altitude over populated areas was rarely reported for the F-117 or B-2. In contrast, the Flying Triangle deployment, especially during the 1990s, appears more consistent with the open and public operation of these aircraft. In some cases (for example see the above description of the Port Washington Triangle), the deployment may be more consistent with an attempt to display or to be noticed. There appears to be little or no attempt to hide. Hence, the cumulative recent data from several databases lead us to modify the tentative NIDS hypothesis, published in July 2003, that the Triangles are covertly deployed DoD aircraft..."