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.

 

Triangle UFO on Nasa Photo

page: 1
10
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 03:38 PM
link   


These are the infamous triangular craft. The reports are simply too many and too clear. The sizes of these triangles have ranged from small to immense. Most of them are slow moving and low flying. The fact some of them fly so low, and so slowly, is a problem that demands an explanation.

Im sure Nasa knows about them too, the picture I included is a nasa photo of a black triangle. Nasa will tell you its space junk, does anybody really believe them when they say, oh thats nothing, just go about your lives like it was nothing.
Space junk, thats a good one.
Link




posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 04:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Chovy
here's the larger pic from a web source taken by someone aboard the shuttle.



I think it's a byproduct of the military's secret 'Aurora' program

I suspect that's about as high as the Aurora could go... unless...Once it left our gravity field... How could it possibly fly, unless it had some sort of technology we the public, don't know about.




[edit on 18-4-2009 by star in a jar]



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 04:43 PM
link   
Since Hoagland can't even get the date of the New York Times article right (among other things), why on Earth believe anything that comes from him?
www.nytimes.com...

That's a pretty ratty looking craft if you ask me. It does look more like a piece of junk.

As far as leaving our "gravity field", you'd have to go to the end of the universe to do that. But it's still pretty strong even at 250,000 miles (though this is far less than that), strong enough to keep the Moon in orbit.

[edit on 4/18/2009 by Phage]



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 04:47 PM
link   
Myself, and three people I know have seen these....
I am really suspecting they are man-made....
The whole Aurora theory - I don't know if it's fact yet, or gov. coverup or what cuz I need to do more research - wouldn't surprise me one bit.
It just sucks we aren't told about them. Seems really interesting. They exist, I have no doubt.
They've been reported to do some impossible things like drop in altitude in a way that would kill anyone on board. Hovering, etc.......they MUST have some anti-gravity technology....
Anyway, that's a total trip that there is one on google earth, if it isn't photoshop/haox....
Thanks for posting!



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 04:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage
 

Never said that I believe Hoagland. But I sure as hell don't believe nasa, do you? They lie all the time and they're not very good at it.



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by phoebeflakes
they MUST have some anti-gravity technology....

The problem is that anti-gravity technology in a flying wing is a contradiction that makes no sense whatsoever.

I can buy that its an advanced border-to-space military aircraft, but that's about it. To be picky there's really no detail at all in the actual object, the photo doesnt necessarily show anything man-made (or otherwise) that can even be confirmed to be flying. A video would have been awesome.



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 05:05 PM
link   
Yeah, it appears to have a shape that may be made for regular ol' flying capabilities, but the fact that numerous people have seen it hovering is why I mention anti-gravity.

Though....come to think of it, there are plenty of ways to make it hover without 'alien' or any secret special technology anyway lol
It's just harder to think of it that way because the thing looks so darned huge and impossible to keep up in the air....at least when I saw it, and when I heard other people talking about it....
That doesn't mean anything necessarily other than I underestimate the capacity of plenty of regular old technology though I suppose.

[edit on 18-4-2009 by phoebeflakes]



posted on Apr, 18 2009 @ 05:47 PM
link   
Having experience one of the Triangle somewhat close up I have come to 2 conclustions. 1. They are an aircract created and controlled by the U.S. 2. They use a propulsion system that has yet to be revielled. It was completely scilent and moved at incredible speeds when it is going fast. Like they said earlier, once they reach an antitude bellow 300 feet they slow down immensley.



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 12:04 PM
link   
reply to post by Phage

Where is the source of the original photo? The article is about space junk to be sure, but I emailed the author and he has no recollection of where he got the photo from... Anyone know where to find it at NASA?




posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
Since Hoagland can't even get the date of the New York Times article right (among other things), why on Earth believe anything that comes from him?
www.nytimes.com...


Because that is a red herring. You should stop putting forth so many logical fallacies when you argue. You do it constantly.



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 12:47 PM
link   
I for one think it is U.S. Government technology.
It IS intriguing why they don't tell us about it. What is so harmful about us knowing about anti-gravity technology? Are they afraid we'll want it for ourselves? When we found out it was possible to get flying cars, they were just incredibly expensive, most people lost interest. When we learned we could go into space, it was just incredibly expensive, most people lost interest. There are so many amazing tehcnologies out there that are just too expensive to interest the general public.
Basically, there has to be something odd behind why they don't want us to know what this is, what it does, what it is doing, how it does it, and how much it costs.



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by gatorboi117
I for one think it is U.S. Government technology.
It IS intriguing why they don't tell us about it. What is so harmful about us knowing about anti-gravity technology? Are they afraid we'll want it for ourselves? When we found out it was possible to get flying cars, they were just incredibly expensive, most people lost interest. When we learned we could go into space, it was just incredibly expensive, most people lost interest. There are so many amazing tehcnologies out there that are just too expensive to interest the general public.
Basically, there has to be something odd behind why they don't want us to know what this is, what it does, what it is doing, how it does it, and how much it costs.


You mean free energy, yes that is very harmful for some large corporations here on earth, its about power. Read more about why such technology is not in the public domain at www.theorionproject.org... .
I dont say that is true what that website says but its an explanation to why some people dont want such technology if it existed available to the broad public.

[edit on 2009/6/4 by reugen]



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 01:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chovy
reply to post by Phage
 

Never said that I believe Hoagland. But I sure as hell don't believe nasa, do you? They lie all the time and they're not very good at it.


Just to make sure it's not YOU who's doing the lying -- what's a typical NASA lie from any time this year? Give me one example with documentation that exposes it as a lie.



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 01:10 PM
link   
Hey Jim... how's about linking me to the original NASA image of this 'triangle' I would like to see where NASA calls this one 'space debris'

And as to NASA 'telling lies' They don't lie... they just don't tell 'the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth'



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 01:17 PM
link   
Did you check my link zorgon? Somewhere in there it says that nasa thinks it's space junk. I hope you don't believe that half witted excuse.



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 01:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Riposte
 
Doubting an individual's reliability based on their inability to accurately cite sources is not a logical fallacy. Implying that the individual has been in error before and is possibly unreliable isn't a logical fallacy either.

The debris is featured in a newspaper that is sold internationally. It is clearly in the context of 'space junk.' On the bibliotecapleyades link, it becomes a 'black triangle UFO.' Making an error in the date of a calender year makes checking sources pretty difficult stuff. I doubt Hoagy had content control over the article, but he has been known to fudge or omit his sources. To many people, he is an unreliable source.

reply to post by zorgon

have you tried u2u Armap? The image seems to be one released by NASA. Subsequently it was re-branded by Cristoforo Barbato (UFO Digest) as a 'black triangle UFO' and hit the UFO forums and websites. If the NASA source is known, Armap could already know where it's located...

edit for spelling and 'reply'

[edit on 4-6-2009 by Kandinsky]



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Chovy
Did you check my link zorgon? Somewhere in there it says that nasa thinks it's space junk.


No its says...

"Black Triangle UFO in NASA Photo labeled "Space Junk" by NY Times - 2/6/08"




I hope you don't believe that half witted excuse.


Me? Hmmm Ya know my friend at 45th Wing Space Command told me this...




During war games at Hill AFB, Utah, I was standing out on the flightline, guarding the perimeter, the entry-access control point. The rest of the base was in black out conditions, with black plastic over the windows of the buildings. All of the sudden, an aircraft or an airship was above me, of unknown origin. It was the biggest aircraft I have ever seen, completely silent and moved approximately ten miles an hour, almost floating. It was triangular, no visible engines, no markings, gun metal black. It essentially looked like it could fly in space. And when it accelerated, it leaped frog; that it is to say, it blinked out and reappeared farther away. It basically disappeared when it accelerated. BV


This was 1985. Since that 'test' of his loyalty he became very highly placed


NASA calls EVERYTHING that is anomalous in our eyes 'space debris', but I still want to see the high res version of this one



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 01:30 PM
link   
I'm not trying to give Hoagland any credibility. I'm just pointing out how everything unexplained for nasa is instantly labelled as space junk.



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kandinsky If the NASA source is known, Armap could already know where it's located...


Half of ArMaP's sources came from me


Check out my database sometime, though it needs a little updating on recent stuff... I needs a secretary


www.thelivingmoon.com...



posted on Jun, 4 2009 @ 01:35 PM
link   
The Space Junk theory is garbage. NASA does not allow the shuttle to come within miles of any Space Junk. If this triangle shape WAS in fact space junk, it would have to be epically huge to be able to be seen like this from the safe distance the shuttle would be at, which raises the question... what "junk" would that be?



new topics

top topics



 
10
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join