It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Photo of a "Black Triangle"

page: 9
1
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 07:24 PM
link   


Why would a corporation build them and then fly them secretly at night, but with huge lights illuminating the bottom? I would think if a company built something like that it would be because they had plans to sell them to the general public in which case they would use other marketing avenues, and probably be on every morning show etc.. if they were building it for the airline industry or something they would have it covered in industry magazines, trade shows, etc.. and if they were building it for the govt then I would imagine it would be treated as a secret project. I'm not saying a company didn't or wouldn't build something like pictures just trying to understand your reasoning. Thanks


Well, I was sorta thinking, it's like get everyone excited for a few years without saying anything, than at the peak of it, release the news about it to the public, so that lots of people hear about it.

It could be too, some rich old coot likes messing with people, and has them built and flown.




posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 07:56 PM
link   
There will always be infinite theories about what UFOs might be, and instead of trying to process every single one of them just try and think logically for yourself for a second and you'll see what theories are more plausible.



posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 08:14 PM
link   
Err does that mean that its not logical that a UFO can fly lightyears through space (which is a phenomenal jump of belief to accept initially) all to end up scaring earthlings by stalking them or crashing into the planet because of an oops.?


Originally posted by Drexon
There will always be infinite theories about what UFOs might be, and instead of trying to process every single one of them just try and think logically for yourself for a second and you'll see what theories are more plausible.


[edit on 14-11-2005 by Netchicken]



posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 09:16 PM
link   

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


I'm no photoshop expert but i do try use it as much as possible and from that i dont believe that you can get that kind of semi-distortion in that pic.
looks real to me!



posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 09:27 PM
link   
Fine, I'll explain further. Oh, and this is not a reply to netchicken, but a general reply to the thread.

What UFOs are and where they're from (be it your imagination, the military or another planet) is a highly personal opinion. The way the world is today you can't go shouting your view on it as the thruth as you'd immediately get someone like netchicken here to try and contradict you. This is why I deal in probabilities and not beliefs. The trick is to stay as objective as possible, and to carefully choose what information to choose as truer than other. This is not an easy task I might mention. But generally if you only go for the 'big' news and only think of Them as true to the UFO phenomenon you should be able to get a grasp of, heh, what your personal opinion is.

As for you, netchicken, I ask you this; Do you really think that humans can glide the skies with a supposed technology that Doesn't rely on moving a whole lotta air to keep the craft up? Sure, there's helium and other lighter than air gases, but they're too big and contradicts past and present UFO sightings.



posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 09:38 PM
link   
Now lets consider the KISS principle (Keep it simple stupid).

1. We have large black triangles cruising the land at night scaring people. (Personally I believe this is true, they are real there is enough evidence of that, and this pic is probably real as well)

So where might they come from?

A: Secret US technology
B: Secret Foreign technology
C: Aliens from beetlejuice

OK Looking at it logically and simply, which of the 3 above is the best bet. Remember I don't care what you see on TV, or have assimilated from science fiction books

Keep it simple

- just how realistic is it that the makers of these craft come from another planet light years away.

Or is it more realistic to believe that they are manufactured here by humans?

We are so saturated in a science fiction society through TV, books, movies, etc that the implausability of the entire situation is lost in a niave agreement that aliens can fly lightyears to visit earth and scare us.



posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 09:50 PM
link   
O.k. Netchicken I have seen a UFO , so lets say that you are right and these things have always been U.S. technology.

Then that would have to mean that the U.S. has Free Energy Anti-Gravity machines and they fly around the globe scaring people, breaking every law in the constitution while we sit around Driving SUV's and flying Space Shuttles and refusing to sign on to the Kyoto Treaty.



posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 10:03 PM
link   
Once again you succeed in completely avoiding not only my questions but also my point. I applaud you. *clap*

What you're asking is what this forum is FOR. To determine what's more probable, plausable, realistic. There simply isn't enough proof (a pretty useless word when you're discussing these things), and because of that we discuss.

You say realistic, but you say so without knowledge of science. Look at the absolutely Exponantial progress of science since we got electricity. You have no jurisdiction to say what technology can and can't achieve given enough time, none whatsoever. As a matter of fact, none of us have. Back on track, realistic. Whatever these things are they in almost every UFO sighting seem to defy our perception of what human technology has achieved. I've mentioned it before, but I've even seen one of them semi-cloaked, and as far as I know the human race hasn't even begun to touch that. Doesn't that seem odd to you? In my case there's just, and I can't stress this enough, there's just No Possible Way that what I saw was human made, it had a level of technology we can only dream about. And having witnessed that I hope you can begin too see why I think that they would have no problem covering great distances without problem.

You mention "scare"...... why? The only people scared by these things (you?) are the people letting themselfes get scared. I certainly wasn't one of them, I even went chasing the one I saw once it went behind that pesky building. Maybe you're only trying to copy your nations politicians by using that word, what do I know.
Anyways, please give us a better argument than the "What's more realistic, human or beetlejuice?" in the future.



posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 10:18 PM
link   
Drexon ,

I think you make some good points.

I witnessed a UFO fairly close up , and I defiantly think that what I witnessed was beyond what we as the Human Race can reasonably achieve in the near future, much less have achieved already.

I obviously don't know that is the case , but its my impression for sure.

Even if it is not , and indeed is Human Tech, then its still the biggest story of our lifetimes because there is no limit to what we can do with seemingly unlimited power and the ability to defy Gravity.

I am of the belief that the observed capabilities of UFOs would imply that indeed they are or at least seem to be able to travel vast distances through space.



posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 10:31 PM
link   
Yeah. Though I'm not really on the 'defying gravity' train yet I have to say that whatever technology they use to get around it certainly points in that direction. Also, (human) quantum mechanics foresees that once gravity propulsion has been mastered with gravity inertia will also go, making a craft using such technology capable of making extreme acceleration, extreme turns and extreme (!) speed achievable.

Hey, you said up close.. how long a distance between your index finger and your thumb, with your arm fully stretched out, would you say what you saw occupied? Mine, about an inch.



posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 10:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Drexon
Yeah. Though I'm not really on the 'defying gravity' train yet I have to say that whatever technology they use to get around it certainly points in that direction. Also, (human) quantum mechanics foresees that once gravity propulsion has been mastered with gravity inertia will also go, making a craft using such technology capable of making extreme acceleration, extreme turns and extreme (!) speed achievable.



When I said defy gravity , what I mean to say is control it.

I believe that Gravity can be controlled by Science at some point in the future.

Yep without inertia you need very little energy to accelerate too, as inertia is not holding you back.






Hey, you said up close.. how long a distance between your index finger and your thumb, with your arm fully stretched out, would you say what you saw occupied? Mine, about an inch.



Oh you said between index finger and thumb , I guess around 3 / 3.5 inches or so.



[edit on 14-11-2005 by lost_shaman]



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 10:01 AM
link   
Whoa, that's a lot! Link me up, Shaman boy.
I wanna read about this!



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 11:32 AM
link   
i saw one of those perfect round- disks back in 1998 or 99

it was perfectly silent and all that good stuff...

among other sightings....which ive gone into many times

I never saw a triangle like this.
I wouldnt doubt its real.
Could be fake but everything could be fake.

thats a very interesting photo tho; and i would love to know more about the object in that photo

great find



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 06:14 PM
link   
Well I've used all my knowledge with photoshop in this picture and it seems very very real - I mean - the picture itself is real for sure.

I just don't know whats the "glare" on top-center...

anyways, I'm not saying this is an alienship FOR SURE I'm just sayin that the picture is not fake. But then again... it can be a screen or picture taken from a movie... and that could explain the glare.

By way... the ship is not a "perfect triangle"... u can clearly see "wings" as there is a "fracture" of drawing line on each side... def wings.

if its not a screen / picture from movie, WOW.



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 09:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by UnMature




external image



Anyone else notice what looks almost like a small person (small in comparison to the craft) standing to the left of where the forward light reaches the ground? This is not something on the brances but rather something on the ground beneath the craft...any ideas as to what it is?




ehh

[edit on 15-11-2005 by Senser]

[edit on 12/14/2005 by Amorymeltzer]


PKD

posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 10:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by obsidian468
this could posibly be a government craft utilizing new drive system technology.


yeah. except this type drive system existed in the 1940's.


Ox

posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 12:11 PM
link   
How about this idea then?
Perhaps its a military aircraft... why is it flying over Scotland? Tests maybe? speed tests? Why isn't it being tested at Area 51? Perhaps Area 51 isn't big enough for the desired speeds...
Why the lights? Some kind of engine perhaps? Perhaps some kind of venting system to cool the engines after a long flight?
Any ideas? comments?



posted on Nov, 20 2005 @ 09:32 PM
link   
Hey guys, been reading these forums for a few months now and have been following this thread. Found this image at google and it looks like it came from the same collection as the original.

Image



Here is the original link:

Original Link

Don't know what this means, but 2 "photos" of the same object is better than 1 hey? Maybe this will provide more evidence, be it 'for' or 'against'.

P.S: This is my first post, so HI EVERYONE!



posted on Nov, 20 2005 @ 10:43 PM
link   
So it was a hoax. The second one looks like a computer generated one if you ask me.

Edit: Gah, obvious hoax. The blue shine you see on the middle light that stretches out on both sides, that's an effect caused by the beholders eye (in this case camera), not something that's actually in the sky, but on this photo it's behind all the trees, hence hoax.

[edit on 20-11-2005 by Drexon]



posted on Nov, 20 2005 @ 11:44 PM
link   
This is what i saw many years ago over Staffordshire, im glad i found this thread.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join