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.


Three Clear Photographs of Black Triangle over South Carolina

page: 13
<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in


posted on Jun, 13 2009 @ 06:16 PM

Originally posted by LeftyBrown
But what makes me more skeptical of this is, wouldn't you think that everyone in that area would see it? It's large and perfectly visible. Either it's fake or there were people freaking out but it's kept under wraps.


People are mostly to busy with their daily life to notice, or care... And if you live near an Air Base and are NOT a conspiracy nut, you might look up and say "wow, wonder what that model is?" then go about your business.

People that live near launch sites... atfer a few launches you may still watch them, but you don't call everyone and say "HEY guess what I saw"

Friend of mine lives at Patrick... can watch the shuttle from the front porch... but doesn't bother most times... other things to do... heck its only another shuttle

posted on Jun, 13 2009 @ 06:19 PM

Originally posted by 0nce 0nce
-FYI- I'm getting pissed off at all these fake UFO hoaxes, and whoever is responsible is going to get caught.

What if it turns out to be a PsiOps operation by the government when you find them? Then what?

[edit on 13-6-2009 by zorgon]

posted on Jun, 13 2009 @ 06:24 PM
reply to post by zorgon

Hmm, you have a good point there. Pretty nice photos nonetheless. Good evidence

posted on Jun, 14 2009 @ 12:05 PM
Yes,odd looking thing.It makes me think of some military
secret plane.

posted on Jun, 14 2009 @ 04:54 PM
It looks to me very much how i imagine the FB-22 in flight would look from that angle. Anyone else think so? Heres a diagram and info page on the FB-22.

posted on Jun, 14 2009 @ 08:50 PM
Wow, I've read all of this thread (so far) and although I know nothing about photography, photoshop or the like, I've found it very interesting and well presented with regard to the discussion on it being a fake.

ANYWAY, admittedly I know nothing about photography, but I do have some questions... oh and I'll just say that I'm open to the idea that these are real, but I think they're just pictures of a model...

1) Why would alien craft need lights on the underside? Already covered I know... but even if they did have lights they might be off. Also if this is a black ops vehicle wouldn't the same apply?

2) Someone mentioned the movement of the craft earlier, is it possible to assume that it might have been hovering AND moving about intermittently - do we know what the time between pictures was (did I miss that? It's late).

3) Somebody also mentioned reflection as a question regarding credibility, but is it not possible that this is constructed from a material with a "different" reflective quality than we might be aware of?

4) Size isn't everything! Maybe this object is only 2ft long, but are we assuming that aliens are all roughly human sized? Maybe they're like Barbie sized?

Mod Note: General ATS Discussion Etiquette – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 15-6-2009 by mrwupy]

posted on Jun, 14 2009 @ 10:01 PM

Originally posted by sjag9
These photographs were taken in South Carolina on May 26, 2009 during a thunderstorm. The witness thought that it was some kind of military aircraft, but did not hear any engine sound (possibly because of the thunderstorm). There's no other information supplied, such as the speed of the aircraft, etc. They don't look to be CGI to me, but I'm far from being an expert on that. I've seen pictures like this before that turned out to possibly be a model RC craft of some type or the other, but I thought that the best place to have a fruitful disussion of this is here on ATS. So, what are your thoughts?

Here's the link to the original source:


I too was there this faitfull day but was able to capture a 2nd craft flying along side the triangle.

posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 01:20 AM
reply to post by internos

Hmmmm Curious...

The report on this site...

Shows the date as Date of Sighting: April 19, 2008

Then a few days later they get comments....

Update April 26, 2008: We have received comments that the triangular object is a Mugi Evo, a radio control plane made from Correx. This is a possibility, but not known. See drawing below of a model of the Mugi Evo:

Link Provided

On this thread of the first three triangle from SC posted on UFO Casebook...

The SECOND Post is already linking to...

"It looks a lot like a Mugi Evo RC model painted black. ..."

Link Provide...

Now we have a third case...

March 2009
April 19, 2009
Mat 26 2009

All three have three images that look very similar

Why do I get the feeling we are seeing a marketing scam?

I could be wrong though...

posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 09:01 AM
reply to post by zorgon

interesting.. it doesn't feel like the same thing but given the close repetition it makes for the most plausible answer from an "earthly sense" There's a lot of triangles out there it seems.

It seems like we would have picked up on the fins in these pics though...

good update Z..


posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 11:10 AM
reply to post by sjag9

COol pictures and perhaps the most defined ones i haev seen in a long time. I have seen them 2 football fields wide and half a mile long this one seems to be asmaller version of the mother ship.

posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 11:14 AM
reply to post by fls13

From my background and knowledge on these air crafts, specificly the black triangles. Stealth fighters are commonly mistakenly for the the black triangles.but th eblack triangles mentioned with most ufo stories tend to be back engineered air craft created by human hands in the military. so most of the black triangels are not even carrying aliens in side them for the most part.

posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 01:18 PM
looks like someone is flying a kite in their backyard.

ooo, awwww, ooooo

posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 01:25 PM

Originally posted by PINDARFOX12
From my background and knowledge on these air crafts,

Be so kind as to share your "background and knowledge on these air crafts"

It would be appreciated

posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 02:49 PM
im going for an RC model, sorry it just doesnt look like anything i havnt seen down the sunday flighing club, as for the weather, how can u tell its in the middle of a storm? there still pics.... ive taken RC's up in weather that looked much worse than that, and you got 3 pics of something black going on on a fixed corse not really a hard feet of model flying

posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 08:05 PM

Originally posted by refuse_orders
It looks to me very much how i imagine the FB-22 in flight would look from that angle. Anyone else think so? Heres a diagram and info page on the FB-22.(snip)

I read every post in this thread and finally I see this post which is a reasonable idea of what the object could be, and nobody even replied to this post yet? Amazing, well I have no idea if it's an FB-22 or not, but yes I see the resemblance, even down to the detail of the single sawtooth at the leading edge of the wing near where it meets the canopy. So I wouldn't rule out the FB-22, nor would I rule out a model based on the FB-22 though I disagree a little with the post that said you can get a toilet seat to fly in RC version, maybe so but it would be difficult to control as I suspect this craft would be difficult to control in RC form. I also wouldn't rule out Aurora or a model of Aurora, a very similar shape.

If this is a model, I don't think it's Mugi Evo, the shape doesn't appear close enough to me, but if someone was able to identify a model with a shape more similar to the one photographed, that would be more convincing.

Some of the theories we can discard are weather balloon, (OK I'm sure you were joking about that), Kite (Were you joking about that? This has no characteristics of a kite), object thrown in the air and photographed (attitude is too consistent for that). And are the people taking about aliens and reverse engineering serious or kidding? I can't tell. This looks like a manmade object.

Regarding it being a fake, I think if a fake is bad it's possible to prove it's a fake. But of the proof offered so far in this thread that it's a fake, it's not convincing to me. On the contrary, take the photograph where the guy added the bad fake and slide your gamma control and you can see the difference between the fake object and this one. Now, if it's not a bad fake, that leaves 2 other options, either it's a good fake, or it's a real object. I don't know which, it's hard to disprove a good fake, so it could be that or it could be real. Whoever thinks the heights and angles don't add up, or the timing spacing of the photographs don't line up, I don't find that argument convincing at all. I used to live near an air base and have jets fly over my house, at speeds, turns, and scales that would be similar to what is seen in these photos (though I could hear them). Maybe I could have taken more than 3 photos but maybe not, some digital cameras take a significant fraction of a second before allowing you to take the next picture. And even if I didn't take more than 3 pictures doesn't prove that what I photographed is a fake.

Regarding the scale, it's impossible to tell if it's a small model closer to the camera, or a larger real aircraft further away from the camera. (or a good fake that was photoshopped in)

Now I'm pretty sure about all the above. Another thought I'm not as sure about, is the sound property. Stealthy aircraft have the engines buried inside the body of the aircraft which is why you don't see the bulging cylindrical jet engine protrusions on the FB-22 and Aurora drawings like you do on older style jets. I'm guessing here that the jet engines being buried inside in this fashion would probably significantly reduce, though probably not eliminate the jet engine sound. But I never saw any Auroras or FB-22s fly overhead like the common jets, so I can't make a personal confirmation of this sound reduction, but if somebody else has maybe they can confirm if my guess is correct that they are not as loud, and maybe even quiet enough to not be heard in a thunderstorm, especially if only using a fraction of maximum power.

posted on Jun, 15 2009 @ 08:56 PM
reply to post by Arbitrageur

I have a really strong suspicion that it is the FB-22 or a close variant.
The FB-22 has not been created yet, apparently it will be operational by 2018. Now that being said im certain they will have a couple of prototypes that have probably been working on for a while. Here's a photo of what the FB-22 will look like flying with an F-22 for comparison.

Heres its wiki page

posted on Jun, 16 2009 @ 12:40 AM
reply to post by mosesgunner

That is one of the saddest attempts I've seen.

posted on Jun, 16 2009 @ 01:08 AM
reply to post by refuse_orders
That's a good artist's conception of the FB-22, and the resemblance to the object photographed is striking.

Now one person made an interesting comment, that it would not seem prudent to fly your valuable prototype in adverse weather conditions like a thunderstorm, so if it's an FB-22 or similar prototype, you do have to wonder why it's out flying in that kind of weather.

posted on Jun, 16 2009 @ 07:13 AM
reply to post by Arbitrageur

Surely though like the F-22 the FB-22 is going to have to be an all weather stealth aircraft and the only way to confirm this would be to rigorously test it in as many weather conditions as possible. Another thought is that it might just have taken off, the cloud cover looks like its at quite a low alt so as soon as your above it you would have perfect conditions for flying undetected to the general public.

posted on Jun, 16 2009 @ 08:28 AM
reply to post by refuse_orders

Excellent points, certainly it's an all-weather craft. However even the best designed craft can be brought down by microbursts associated with thunderstorms, so that's the risk you would probably want to avoid since it's not practical (maybe even impossible) to design a craft immune to microbursts. Though the onboard radar is pretty good at avoiding existing microbursts, it would be a new one popping up unexpectedly that would be the threat, and the prototypes are not easily replaced.

But I like the thought of actually using cloud cover to hide the aircraft, an interesting possibility, (though testing at area 51 would hide it better).

new topics

top topics

<< 10  11  12    14  15  16 >>

log in