Very good picture, I'm geussing the larg lights are engines, but I'm curious what the other smaller lights might be for.

i think thats what people saw over phinox arizona. but that one might be fake.

On second thought, they might be grav landers.

Also, Abe, I dont see the resemblance between this and the phoenix lights, those were most likely UAV drones.

[edit on 4/4/2005 by iori_komei]

Well, given that the top secret government tech is often decades ahead of what we the public know about (remember how long the SR-71 was in use before we even had an inkling of its existence?), this could posibly be a government craft utilizing new drive system technology.

The four bright lights on the underside don't look like most lights used on aircraft (in fact, I've only seen a few theatre lighting fixtures that resemble the glow the lights on the aircraft give off, and never one that large). Given the patterns of reflection off of the moisture in the air (if this was taken in Scotland at night, it's likely that it was either foggy, drizzling, or all out raining), they don't appear to be normal lights Perhaps these lights are the drive systems themselves. Having done a little research on EM theory, this glow seems consistent with the glow that an extremely high voltage EM system would give off (from the electrical arcs, covering a smooth surface). Perhaps it's also an anti-grav system as most theory on anti-gravity does figure heavily on electromagnetics.

The clarity of the photograph suggests that the aircraft was moving very slowly, if at all. This rules out jet propulsion for the most part (unless VTOL jet engines really have been perfected, and even then, the blue lights don't conform to known jet exhaust glows). So, if this is in fact a vehicle of terrestrial origin, then it is using some publicly unknown propulsion technology. As I stated earlier, the government is often decades ahead of publicly known technology, so this is a very real possibility.

Anyone have any specifics on EM or anti-grav technology that might be able to back up my speculation?

Any photochop experts care to comment on the validity of the pic? From where im sitting, it looks absolutely real to me.

who/whatever it is surely doesn't want it to be a secret, why else why they put huge bright lights and fly low level??

This is more than likely totally innocent, probably a UAV or even someones private project. People are individually designing their own space craft these days (for example the Million dollar space challage).

Not very good at scanning the locality as whoever took the photo would have been noticed.. either that or they didn't care about being seen or it is fake.

Impressive pic all the same.

[edit on 4/4/05 by Klepto]

If it was public UAV, the gov. sure has alot of Esplanin to do.

Originally posted by iori_komei
If it was public UAV, the gov. sure has alot of Esplanin to do.

Like I said, it doesn't have to be a goverment project to be UAV, there are a lot of inventive people out their who are capable of making their own.

Klepto, what is your opinion on its engines?


Oh and:

You have voted obsidian468 for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.

[edit on 4/4/2005 by iori_komei]

Originally posted by iori_komei
Very good picture, I'm geussing the larg lights are engines, but I'm curious what the other smaller lights might be for.

Not at all. The pheonix lights were twice as large at least. The lights were in different places. On this they are in the corners and the centre. Whereas the whatever it was in phoenix had lights bording the parameter. On this photo there is also and obvious "body" to the craft but this wasn't evident in the pheonix incident.

Not connected. IMO

It looks non-photoshopped. The photo is real, but wether that is a model or not is not up to me to decide

It has gone through photoshop, it has a photoshop tag on it, however, the user could just have cropped it in photoshop, VERY VERY impressive picture, definitly looks real, but i'll invesigate it close up...

Originally posted by iori_komei
Klepto, what is your opinion on its engines?


Oh and:

You have voted obsidian468 for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.

[edit on 4/4/2005 by iori_komei]

It is impossible to guess what motion system this employs as a photo is inconclusive. I would imagine that this may have been RC as the photographer was not involved by the aircraft in anyway.. no action was taken by said pilot of craft to any persons in locality that would jeapodise security of the craft. Therefore, this is not military, this is not advanced technology else the crew are incompitent..

I can never understand the concept of abductions where they are then let loose after the abduction.. surely this encourages whistleblowing? I don't believe the story in the article, if he was abducted, why allow him to keep his camera? why bother wiping memory for 2 days... what would wiping memory do other than lead a person to endlessly search as to what happened during that time? This would jeopadise security and is therefore unfeasable.. If there was any mal intent then why not exterminate any persons involved, if there was not then why wipe the abductees memory?



[edit on 4/4/05 by Klepto]

Just wanted to point out that at the edges or sides of the 'Triangle', it sort of concaves inward thus making it not a true triangle.

Originally posted by Simulacra
Just wanted to point out that at the edges or sides of the 'Triangle', it sort of concaves inward thus making it not a true triangle.

Very good observation. I hadn't noticed it. (don't worry ill open my eyes soon)

What could be the reason for that? seems illogical to change hte shape slightly but it is late in the UK and my brain isn't working.

The same is the case in the '89 belgian triangle sighting...

You might curve the edges inward to prevent the smaller lateral lights from reflecting off of the vehicle's hull.

So do we have any print shop pros in here willing to post yay or nay on this photo being real?