Black Triangles: The Worst Kept Secret

a reply to: tomra

No, she literally meant triangles aren't uncommon. Look at the B-2, the X-47, the RQ-170, and many more. The triangle (flying wing) design is naturally very stealthy even before you add stealth features to it.

It's a poor design for a fighter, but for a strike/ISR/combination design it's perfect.

a reply to: DarthFazer

That wasn't a TR-3B (of which the evidence of its existence is very thin). It was a one of the new UAVs, probably an RQ-170. They don't wasn't the new technology they use getting out, so they make sure to clean up carefully.

a reply to: mazzroth

Space Command has been around a long time, its nothing new.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Thank you for clearing that up. She commented on the topic on two occasions i have found and found both comments kinda vague which of course picked my interest.

If you dont mind, i would like to reiterate my question, what do you make of all the observations of black triangles that shows a non typical fixed wing aircraft behavior? There are so many on them (observations) over so many years and they dont seem to be dependent on common aviation physics?

I appreciate your comment!

a reply to: tomra

Ok, let's try this again.

I've heard rumors of unconventional propulsion systems several times. They're not nuclear or antigravity though. From what I've heard, nuclear powered propulsion still has the same problem they had to begin with when they tried to develop a nuclear powered B-36. You can either have shielding, or you can have payload, but not both.

a reply to: Jennyfrenzy That photo has recently been revealed as a fake the guy from Belgium came out and admitted it

a reply to: Zaphod58

But THAT is the issue here.The tech is ABOVE the norm.No drone or aircraft flies and stops rock still,without any drift of any kind no dirigible either. I would say the one in that Paris video opened a field of some kind and is probably the best shot of one of ours any way,it has two tails tilted in.
Im also wanting to hear about SURFACE textures, seams ,panels. Alien stuff is like a self contained shell without any hatches but the one to get, in as far as I understand.

a reply to: cavtrooper7

The tech is above WHAT WE KNOW OF. Just because we don't know it exists doesn't mean it can't. There is stuff out there that I've found out about that would have had me saying there was no way, if it had come from anywhere else. It was later revealed when outside tech was almost caught up.

There is new tech out there now that's impressive as hell that we'd say no way does it exist if we found out about it.

a reply to: dashdespatch
The image posted is similar to what I saw, regardless if it's a fake. I was telling a personal story.

whoops.

Thought that was private message. Deleted.

a reply to: Zaphod58
Your expertise in extrapolation is what ,I guess, I would like to hear. If it is an NRO ride how about a speculative break down of that possibility? Will it be fact? N
o, but a Clancy book is full of facts producing a great fiction I would like YOUR best guess.

a reply to: cavtrooper7

Several of the propulsion methods I've heard of could be easily mistaken for something else entirely. It would be easy to think antigravity, when it's not.

I can easily see something like this flying around doing various missions. Hell it'd probably be good to take into space too. Maybe even long distance flight depending on the propulsion method.

Could be NRO, could be a joint mission like the Sentinel.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Nothing in the "white" locks something in the air like that. It sure would help with rescues I'd bet.Just like the world could use a large heavy lift armada for catastrophe rescue ops. Throw in DUMBs and you could practically have "SHADO" from UFO.

a reply to: cavtrooper7

No this tech (propulsion method) is still buried big time. It'll be awhile before we even see hints of it in the white.

originally posted by: Zaphod58

That wasn't a TR-3B (of which the evidence of its existence is very thin).

That the alleged TR-3B's mode of propulsion supposedly involves mercury plasma pressurized to 250,000 P.S.I. and spinning around at 50,000 RPM is kind of a deal breaker for me.

originally posted by: Junkheap

originally posted by: Zaphod58

That wasn't a TR-3B (of which the evidence of its existence is very thin).

That the alleged TR-3B's mode of propulsion supposedly involves mercury plasma pressurized to 250,000 P.S.I. and spinning around at 50,000 RPM is kind of a deal breaker for me.

LOL...you have troubles with that too?

Here try this it's real science even IF "novel". No exotic plasmas, not high pressures, nor outrageous revolutions...though it does require cryogenic / super conducting temperatures.

originally posted by: ManInAsia

originally posted by: KnightLight
a reply to: Aliensun

Didn't read the second post yet.

I've seen the triangle for over 30 minutes. I know two things. It uses some form of propulsion I do not understand yet. AND It flew the same flight path as many Chinooks and F15s.

It didn't make a sound. It was solid. It "floated" slower than is acceptable to produce lift for a plane. It didn't have enough volume to produce lift using "lighter than air."

I say it was USAF.

The Board is set, but how many people do you think will really be fooled? Or maybe this is what pulls us out of WW III in a believable way? If that's the case, I may choose to be willfully ignorant.

How do you know it didn't have enough volume to produce lift from helium or hydrogen? It's obvious that the simple explanation may apply here..that it is some form of hybrid blimp/plane design. There are plenty of companies that are working on something similar, just not in the same shapes.

Exactly:



More in this thread: UFOs of the Future: Will these aircraft be mistaken for "Alien Ships" in the years to come?

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: tomra

No, she literally meant triangles aren't uncommon. Look at the B-2, the X-47, the RQ-170, and many more. The triangle (flying wing) design is naturally very stealthy even before you add stealth features to it.

It's a poor design for a fighter, but for a strike/ISR/combination design it's perfect.

A-12 as well...

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: cavtrooper7

Several of the propulsion methods I've heard of could be easily mistaken for something else entirely. It would be easy to think antigravity, when it's not.

I can easily see something like this flying around doing various missions. Hell it'd probably be good to take into space too. Maybe even long distance flight depending on the propulsion method.

Could be NRO, could be a joint mission like the Sentinel.

Problem is though the method you speak of is a new development right?

Black triangles have seen sighted since the late 80's so what you alude to cant be whats seen on them right?

a reply to: crazyewok

Some are new, some have been around for a while, but I'm just learning about them. At least two have been around for years, but I'm not sure how many.