It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Black Triangles: The Worst Kept Secret

page: 6
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 2 2014 @ 05:43 PM
a reply to: Astr0

These 'phantom' flying triangles are very real. As Astro noted above, they were developed by a concerted effort of the US and UK, using terrestial materials, and are flown by us. Nothing alien here, whatsoever. Purely a developmental technologies platform, with ISR capabilities... Hell, even PSYOP, if you want you're the tin-foil hat type.

posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 09:28 AM

originally posted by: Astr0
What if, like the SR-71, the US, UK, NZ, Canadian and Aus. Governments clammed up tight together and said 'right, lets really get onto the kooks and loons with the 'TR-3B' and destroy any and all credibility these sightings ever could have.

Well, it hasn't really worked, now has it? Ed Fouche may have turned out to be a shifty character but the basic idea of black triangles being human tech isn't all that crazy or farfetched. Except perhaps for the alien reverse engineering part. He's not really kooky or loony either but rather couldn't get his supposed military facts straight. I think that the terrestial hypothesis is perfectly reasonable, but it becomes harder and harder to accept the more we go into the past.

That's not to say I do not have a copy of the 1561 woodcut on my desk. I do, and it intrigues me greatly.

I don't myself put much faith into supposed premodern sightings. There was a thread on ATS once where someone debunked that woodcut as medieval sensationalism over solar halos. Perhaps a bit swampgassy, but everything considered a pretty reasonable explanation.

However, the modern continued rash of sightings and events are due to human technology.

What is your definition of modern in this case? Is 1977 modern? 1960? 1952? The closer and closer we get to the event horizon of supposed black tech projects, 1945 and nazis supposedly toying with mercury plasma, the more and more unlikely it gets that this is human tech in any form.

Belgium included.

The Belgium wave is perhaps a bit overrated when it comes to triangles. I know there were a lot of sightings but it had also elements of mass hysteria to it. I remember that F-16's were scrambled to check out what turned out to be lasers in a music festival... But there was one sighting along the triangles which caught my attention. There was a man from Belgium who appeared in one UFO documentary. He had seen a hexagonal UFO which seemed clearly derived from the same kind of design principles as the triangles. He seemed pretty level headed but the sighting had had a huge impact on him. He seemed nearly obsessed over it and had built a scale model of the thing he saw.

There's also a number of other craft which seem to be part of the same "family" as the black triangles including boomerang-shaped, rectangular and hollow triangular craft. Despite these we don't have people leaking info about super secret SB-4's and KC-8's... Maybe because these sibling crafts are seen much more rarely, so no need to try to explain away or ambiguate them.

No 'aliens', no 'beings from other planets', and they are far more important to human evolution than just a 'cargo blimp'.

If they are human tech then what makes them work? The EM drive engine arguments are kinda convincing for the post 1989 sightings, maybe even 1977's...but the problem is that people have been seeing them for a much longer time than that. Other alternatives that have been represented suffer from the same problem. The mass cancellation hypothesis for example even more. It becomes increasingly difficult to believe that humans could have somehow achieved such levels of technology in the 1950's. Let alone before that. There's of course the nazi antigravity torus and tesla tech arguments but I find the supposed science behind these suspicious.

Also, I would like to hear more details about the BASSPLYR incident. How were you able to tell that the triangle would return? I'm asking because theoreticaly a blind guess would have a 50% chance of succeeding.

posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 09:48 AM
a reply to: phantomflier

I have a thread on my sighting here on ATS in the grey area section. I don't know how to post links to other threads cause I'm crummy on a computer or I would.

n regards to how did they know I would see the craft again. It followed the same flight path, or at least it did when I was seeing it. They might have changed it's flight path by now. And, it was keeping a schedule for a few weeks. Sure seems like its ours.

posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 12:51 PM
a reply to: BASSPLYR

Thanks, I'll try to find the thread when I have the time and go through it. You said it kept schedule for weeks. Did you see it more than twice then?

I don't myself think that a regular flightpath would necessarily be prrof for earth tech. But if it was following a path between for example two military bases, as the original NIDS report claimed that triangles do, then it would be more proof for a terrestial hypothesis.

I myself used to be more on the earth tech camp. It's just that some of the key players involved in this hypothesis turned out to be rather suspicious (Ed Fouche & NIDS). And the fact that these have been seen for at least decades kind of goes against it too, unless the nazi antigravity torus thing is real...which I kind of doubt myself. But I'm still open to the the terrestial hypothesis. It's just that in the end it's not as obvious as many would hope it to be.

posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 12:55 PM
a reply to: phantomflier

Isn't that the entire point though? I mean why have a SAP that does what these do, and make it obvious that it's earth based, or where it's based at.

posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 01:16 PM
If black triangles follow a predictable flight path that you can revisit, there should be lots of ideal photo/video opportunities, but this isn't really supported by a Google Image search.

posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 01:17 PM
a reply to: conundrummer

Because they don't always follow a predictable flight path. But going from one location to another, sometimes there are only so many paths to take, unless you want to go way out of the way.

posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 02:35 PM
There are a lot of aircraft which have used the delta wing or flying wing configuration which looks like a triangle.

Production examples

Atlas Cheetah
Avro Vulcan - strategic bomber
Buran Space Shuttle
Chengdu J-7 - a Chinese development of MiG-21
Chengdu J-10
Convair B-58 Hustler
Convair F-102 Delta Dagger
Convair F-106 Delta Dart
Dassault Mirage III
Dassault Mirage IV
Dassault Mirage 2000
Dassault Rafale
Eurofighter Typhoon
Gloster Javelin - subsonic fighter
HAL Tejas
IAI Kfir
Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird

Research or prototype-only examples

Avro 707 (1949)
Avro Canada CF-105 Arrow
Boeing X-32
Boulton Paul P.111 (1949) - research to investigate tailess deltas
Boulton Paul P.120 (1952) - developed from P.111
Chengdu J-9
Chengdu J-20
Convair F2Y Sea Dart - unique seaplane fighter
Convair XF-92
Convair XFY - one of the few propeller-driven delta wing aircraft
Dyke Delta - another of the few propeller-driven double delta wing aircraft
Fairey Delta 1 (1951) - transonic delta research
Fairey Delta 2 (1954) - 1st aircraft to break 1,000 mph, rebuilt as BAC 211 for high speed delta research for Concorde
Handley Page HP.115 - low-speed delta research for Concorde
Myasishchev M-50
North American XB-70 Valkyrie
Short SC.1 - first British VTOL aircraft
Sukhoi T-4 / 100 Sotka

Flying wing configuration which also looks like a triangle.

The Soviet Boris Ivanovich Cheranovsky built and tested tailless flying wings, from 1924 gliders, eventually also powered BICh-3.
Frenchman Charles Fauvel designed the AV3 glider, successfully flown in 1933, featuring a self-stabilizing airfoil on a straight wing.
The German Horten H1 glider flown with partial success in 1933, and the subsequent H2 flown successfully in both glider and powered variants.
The American Freel Flying Wing glider flown in 1937.
The American Northrop N-1M of 1940.
The American Northrop N-9M of 1942.
The German Horten Ho 229 of March 1944—the world's first twin jet engine pure flying wing
The British Armstrong Whitworth A.W.52G of 1944, a glider test bed[13] for the later Armstrong Whitworth A.W.52 jet-powered version.
The American Northrop YB-35 of 1946.
The American Northrop YB-49 of 1947.
The Turkish THK-13 of 1948.

Reduced radar cross section designs

United StatesB-2 Spirit – Northrop Grumman
United StatesF-22 Raptor – Lockheed Martin / Boeing
United StatesF-117 Nighthawk – Lockheed Martin
Under development
United StatesF-35 Lightning II – Lockheed Martin / BAE Systems / Northrop Grumman
RussiaPAK FA – Sukhoi
IndiaRussiaFGFA – Sukhoi / HAL
ChinaChengdu J-20 – Chengdu Aircraft Corporation
ChinaShenyang J-31 - Shenyang Aircraft Corporation
TurkeyTuAF TFX - Turkish Aerospace Industries
South KoreaIndonesiaKAI KF-X - Korea Aerospace Industries / Indonesian Aerospace
IranShafaq - HESA / IAMI
SwedenFlygsystem 2020 - Saab
RussiaLMFS - Mikoyan

That is a list of quite a lot of strange triangular looking aircraft. Some sightings could be one of these or possibly if not one of these a black project or UFO.

Mod Note: External Source Tags – Please Review This Link.
Quoting External Sources - Please Review This Link
edit on Tue Jun 3 2014 by Jbird because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-6-2014 by JimTSpock because: Forgot to put quote box on list thanks Jbird

posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 02:39 PM
a reply to: JimTSpock
They don't move slowly and silently so we discounted those.

posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 02:48 PM
At high altitude you would hear nothing from ground level so I imagine some sightings could be one of these aircraft.

A small drone could hover and fly virtually silently and be black and triangular shaped. Or some of them could be UFOs. That's my take on it.

posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 04:06 PM

originally posted by: conundrummer
If black triangles follow a predictable flight path that you can revisit, there should be lots of ideal photo/video opportunities, but this isn't really supported by a Google Image search.

Guess I must of known they were going to use that flight path again. He could of got a photo, could of shared it, but as is his want, decided not to.

posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 04:49 PM
As for mixing up normal jet engine airframes with what BASSPLYR saw pass over head (not once but twice), well, I would say utterly impossible.

Normal aircraft scream into the skies fighting for every ounce of lift they can claw in. These? they are like Swifts compared to farm yard chickens.

Effortless, silken, smooth, deliberate and calculating. Not # arsed flapping like mad sqwarking and a cloud of faeces trailing behind.

posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 08:43 PM
a reply to: conundrummer You are lucky to even see it as it darts past. I got lucky the times I saw it. Thats all. Hunting for it would be a waste of time. You would not be able to get a camera up and ready in time unless you were waiting for it. And even then you would need a real expensive camera to get the craft in focus. If the propulsion system will let you focus a camera when aimed at it. The craft also moves fast enough that it would probably look like a blur. The lights are about as bright and as intense as a dull pale blue star. Not something that will show up on a Iphone or phone camera.

Patriots mind their own business and don't sabotage a good thing for their country when the see it by posting photos. Those in the know as the when and where these craft travel would not take photos and if they have them they probably don't share them outside of their community. Everyone else is either unlucky, looking in the wrong places, or are like me and don't have super human abilities to whip out my camera and take a photo of the thing in time.

Also I think they if they do have to fly the craft they fly it where people don't generally look up. There are many places like this including very very populated places. Also, they may fly it over areas that are not conducive to observing the craft as it travels through the atmosphere.

just some ideas as to why the craft is not all over the news or UFO sights or defense forums.

posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 08:46 PM
a reply to: Astr0

You are correct there is NO confusion when you see it. It's quite distinct. Especially the ease in which it moves. The color of the lights etc. Also, WTH with the red center light everyone claims they see. I think thats a bunch of made up crap personally. I saw no center light. It may have something in the center but this was not emitting any light from the center. Especially not a attention grabbing red one.

posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 08:54 PM
I saw a solid black triangle fly 1000 feet above me while I was taking the dogs out for a late night bathroom break / smoke break. I looked up in the night sky about 2 am and saw the black wedge triangle flying from east to west and go right over my head. It was a clear summer night and you could see the stars. No moon light.

It stood out like a sore thumb because it blocked out the stars. It was huge and you couldn't hear a thing.

Not like stealth aircraft where the craft is darn near silent till it passes you ... It was SILENT

I don't care if ANY of you believe me

It is what I saw.
edit on 3-6-2014 by Zaanny because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 08:56 PM
a reply to: Aliensun

Its a secret so other countries spend trillions and many years developing weapon systems to counter F-22s and F-35s as well as tanks and aircraft carriers that were obsolete the day the rolled off the assembly line.

China buys an old soviet aircraft carrier. They "steal" the designs for our fighters. Russia builds an entire fleet of "next generation" fighters, and tanks. New ships and weapon systems. All of it meant to counter American military tech.

Then they pick a fight.....and triangles descended upon their cities and end it all in a a hiroshima 2 without fall out or soviet spies stealing the "how to" for them back home. Total control there after.

Thats why this will never be released to the public.

Here is a post from another thread that summed up my position on it.

originally posted by: tadaman
a reply to: stirling

Don't sweat it. The world gets crap we no longer need to develop and our enemies waste time and money developing weapon systems to counter our crap.

We could theoretically stop all R&D and just sit back. The problem is if we release our top shelf stuff everyone will eventually figure out its capabilities as well as target us out of natural fear.

Also we would lose the entire weapons industry we took years to develop out of there being no need to develop jets and tanks when we already have something much better.

Stealth, armour, ICBMS all ancient tech from our POV. We just need more time to develop the next phase after what we already have up our sleeve.

Space militarization is already true. Military Satellites that do more than take pictures are just being developed by our enemies. We have more than satellites in space.....we don't need NASA anymore. We don't need a shuttle program, or any other obsolete tech.

Let China and Russia waste trillions and years on jets and tanks.

There were talks of staging a fake alien invasion for Christs sake!

Why am I posting this? Because its already too late. They also dont have another option after declaring their intentions. Their leadership has already committed to challenging the west. It is already "on".

edit on 6 3 2014 by tadaman because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 11:52 PM
a reply to: tadaman

Then why haven't the US already used this tech to establish total world domination? It would be remarkably un-human to not use such an advantage.

posted on Jun, 3 2014 @ 11:59 PM
a reply to: phantomflier

Because if you had something that allowed you to go off planet, why bother with the world? You can leave it for everyone else, and take the high ground and be the first out there.

posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 12:08 AM
a reply to: phantomflier
Because it's rude,we really hate that. I get every one thinks all Americans want everything but for some of us 1 house is fine and I'm happy in THAT regard. We don't want to conquer the world,where would we put it?

That and a populace that could in theory overrun the government if they wanted to with small arms.
edit on 4-6-2014 by cavtrooper7 because: (no reason given)

posted on Jun, 4 2014 @ 12:26 AM
a reply to: phantomflier

we couldnt hold it. We would be operating at a loss always. Also the US isnt exactly completely under control to those ends. There are plenty of honest folk that would throw not just a wrench in that machine but themselves as well so long as it broke down.

new topics

top topics

<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in