Triangle UFO on Nasa Photo, page 1

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

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]

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]

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.

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?

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.

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]

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.

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]

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...

Life Spotted on Venus - Russian Scientist
  Posted 18 days ago with 100 member flags

Moon: inexplicable phenomena. Luna Cognita video.
  Posted 13 days ago with 60 member flags

Aliens Among Us ...Video
  Posted 4 days ago with 59 member flags

Attention: Serious concern about loss of information relating to UFO\'s on the Internet
  Posted 19 days ago with 58 member flags

New UFO footage from my hometown
  Posted 16 days ago with 34 member flags

UFOs \'Escort\' Mexican Aircraft - Radar Confirmed.
  Posted 7 days ago with 31 member flags

The Dyatlov Pass Incident--Russia\'s Mountain of Death
  Posted 14 days ago with 28 member flags

Famous Argentinean painter observed UFO studying parabolic antennas
  Posted 15 days ago with 21 member flags

Newest topics, updated in real-time:

Newest topics getting flags, in real-time:

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time: