Great triangle pics !!, page 14

privacy

Pages: << 11 12 13 14 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 31 times

reply posted on 22-3-2010 @ 02:27 PM by FireMoon

reply to post by drew hempel

The chief problem i have with the triangular craft being a government project is this. As Sherlock Holmes once said "Military secrets are the most fleeting of all".

I just don;t believe they have managed to keep a programme under wraps for 50 years without anyone managing to get a proper picture of it. It's not as if it is located in one place, hidden away and not on the maps. These objects are seen world wide. That they have been for several decades is to suggest that. America has fought several wars without ever using this amazing technology to simply scare the opposition into capitulation. That's not to say that other projects have been mistaken for these craft, but none of those projects can, effectively, vanish at will, or accelerate to huge speeds in a second.

See, to fly these things, with the characteristics they exhibit, means there's a whole rake of other technologies that have been developed alongside the basic flight frame. There;'s no way, these technologies wouldn't have been harnessed by other branches of the military.

reply posted on 22-3-2010 @ 03:52 PM by alexander_delta

Originally posted by FireMoon
reply to post by drew hempel

The chief problem i have with the triangular craft being a government project is this. As Sherlock Holmes once said "Military secrets are the most fleeting of all".

I just don;t believe they have managed to keep a programme under wraps for 50 years without anyone managing to get a proper picture of it. It's not as if it is located in one place, hidden away and not on the maps. These objects are seen world wide. That they have been for several decades is to suggest that. America has fought several wars without ever using this amazing technology to simply scare the opposition into capitulation. That's not to say that other projects have been mistaken for these craft, but none of those projects can, effectively, vanish at will, or accelerate to huge speeds in a second.

See, to fly these things, with the characteristics they exhibit, means there's a whole rake of other technologies that have been developed alongside the basic flight frame. There;'s no way, these technologies wouldn't have been harnessed by other branches of the military.

No.
Until the air force revealed it, nobody anywhere had a picture of the F-117. It had the most unprecedented security of all time.
It stands to reason that since the F-117 was designed in the 1970's that future stealth recon aircraft have been designed and deployed in the years following. Since Lockheed/Northrup/Boeing designs those sorts of special craft you can assume that the army and navy would also have stealthy craft of their own, which would account for seeing different types of strange triangular craft.

Think about it, we are just not used to seeing 21st century aerospace technology. The very most expensive, most cutting edge technology is definitely not going to resemble your average jet plane with wings. Its going to look like something unearthly to the average guy.

As for the oft seen orange/red glow, I think its a sort of visual signature reduction that is more effective at longer distances but does nothing at close range except lead the photographer to believe their looking at "alien thrusters".....

reply posted on 22-3-2010 @ 03:56 PM by alexander_delta

One more thing. Instead of spending 14 pages debating on the validity of these photo's, why not take the simple route.

Its fake unless the "claimant" comes on here to vouch for his photos. If you use that criteria from the get go, you have eliminated 95% of the b.s. right out of the gate.

reply posted on 22-3-2010 @ 03:58 PM by drew hempel

O.K. imagine yourself in my shoes -- which would be typical.

I'm watching t.v. with my sister. She sees lights that she's seen before so she goes outside. I follow. We watch the lights on the horizon. She gets bored and goes in. I study the lights and rule out any mundane explanation.

Then a craft is seen coming from the lights on the horizon towards me. As I see the craft it's already over the next door neighbors woods. I wouldn't have time to find a camera -- I don't own one myself anyway.

And not only that but I didn't dare take my eyes off the craft as it flew over the hill, tree and garage of our property -- I didn't want "missing time."

By then the craft was on its way -- flying low, making a humming noise, slow, right over the trees, going over the valley, across the river, separating Wisconsin and Minnesota.

No photo.

reply posted on 22-3-2010 @ 05:01 PM by Blaine91555

I see two issues. The artifact on one photo that was pointed out earlier and the focus level of the object.

The trees behind the structures are far more out of focus than the object. The edges of the roofs are roughly the same. The closer porch posts are more out of focus. That means, if real, the object is very small and very close to the camera. No furhter away than the buildings in the photo in fact.

I can't find a definitive reason to call these fake. I won't bore you with a meaningless string of filtered images. I am however convinced these are photo's of a small object above the yard between the photographers home and the nearby structures. It would be blurred far more if as far or further away than the trees. ...and yes, about the size of a model aircraft, perhaps a foot or two across.

Focus is a great way to determine size when there is no other way. You can match the level of focus to known objects. In this case it can not be further away than the building in the background, so must be very small and its size would be obvious to the photographer. The photographer would know its small and close. I'll leave it at that.

reply posted on 22-3-2010 @ 05:40 PM by FireMoon

reply to post by alexander_delta

The actual existence of the F-1117 was an (open secret* for years before they admitted it. Ie It's flight characteristics, capabilities etc, were pretty much given out by various organisations in 1983 when it was taken into operational service.

it wasn't even a fighter, in fact, as fighter it made a good brick. I was slow , cumbersome in a turn and generally a bit of a let down. However, the complete and utter b/s that was put out about it did do a good job, until one was shot down, by a shoulder launched missile, over Serbia.

The only real *shock( as it were, aviation wise in the last 30 odd years was the Su22's ability to *stand on its' tail". The Yanks refused to believe it could do it until the Paris Air show where, it did just that.

Ufologists in Britain, were openly talking about the F-1117 and its', probable visits to RAF Machrihanish in the early 80s.. A report of one refueling over a North Sea oil rig, logged by a RAF trained *spotter* was explained as the *stealth craft* by experts at Jane's, long before the official revealing.

That said, the F-117 could not do, anything like, the speeds the Belgian triangles were logged at, on Radar. lets remember some of these triangular craft are described as huge, the F-117 was anything but.

reply posted on 22-3-2010 @ 07:49 PM by defiler

Hi. Just wanted do add my opinion.
The metering mode in the pictures is pattern so that means that the camera is taking the lighting form the whole scene into consideration, thus the triangle object is overcompensated and that means it is very bright. This is normal. But as the poster said (i cant remember the name) the shutter speed of 1/6 sec is very slow and it is not possible to have such a clear picture. I took a pic with my SLR with the settings that were in the picture I couldn't replicate the f number I got to 3.2 not 2.8 but the difference is very small at that number there should be enough light in but still with 1/6 shutter speed and in brighter room I couldn't get the object to be that clear. I'm saying that the picture doesn't make any sense.
The object has dark colour and the background has light colour so there could be very high contrast between them.
Just like in these pictures: the trees and the sky
link
link 2
So I can say that either the picture is fake or the exif data is somehow mixed.
Ow and I just wanted to add that don't rely on the exif it can be manipulated very easy. If they were RAW format that would be great.

reply posted on 22-3-2010 @ 09:17 PM by SunshineGirl36

reply to post by Alpha Grey

You know,I just don't know.Alot of people can Photoshop pictures(I'm not one of them....I don't even know how to use photoshop,sad I know,but true),but these
pictures look really good.It looks like the flying triangles that people have seen
for years......if they're fake,they look like pretty good fakes.

reply posted on 23-3-2010 @ 01:03 AM by demonseed

reply to post by Alpha Grey

i gave it the benefit of the doubt. It looks extremely fake, but sometimes truth is stranger than fiction, so i tried to check it out to see.

its a fake for sure. The light coming out of the craft is illuminating the craft but it stops illuminating at the edges of the craft. What this means is the light coming out of the original image of this has actually been "cut" out. This was copy pasted into the photo.

reply posted on 23-3-2010 @ 01:57 AM by Phage

This is a long thread (absurdly so) but it really doesn't hurt to read, does it?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply posted on 23-3-2010 @ 04:40 PM by ufopunx

reply to post by Phage

No it doesn't hurt, just look at the OP pics and you have understand it all, look like a almost a good fake...

Also I've personally seen the Belgian triangle from my own eyes when I was a kid and I can tell you, as well as every people who have seen a real flying triangle, that this absolutely doesn't look like one of those flying triangle things, shape is not fitting as it is not really a triangle(just look at the pictures from the Belgian wave) and there is 4 lights, one at each side and one in the middle of the thing which is smaller then the side light.

You can't fool a real witness OP.

reply posted on 23-3-2010 @ 08:06 PM by defiler

reply to post by FireMoon

I made this...

I want to make myself clear. This picture I think is fake.
But I'm not saying that what some of you here saw is also fake.
Unfortunately we can only guess. I personally think that the object is added in the picture.

[edit on 23/3/10 by defiler]

[edit on 23/3/10 by defiler]

reply posted on 24-3-2010 @ 05:28 PM by drew hempel

www.examiner.com...

Here's the latest triangle craft sighting.

reply posted on 25-3-2010 @ 02:31 PM by free_spirit

These two photos of alleged triangle UFO were in fact released by no other than
Ken Pfeifer from MUFON NJ not UFO Casebook who just received the photos later most
probably sent by Ken Pfeifer himself. He along with this anonymous “Mr. H” posted the
photos with a short testimonial of the supposed sighting in both his website and the
MUFON NJ website but no additional information was provided, no investigation, no
analysis in one word nothing but the short description mentioning Greenville as the
location, this results highly suspicious.

If these two photos are indeed fakes then Mr. Ken Pfeifer from MUFON NJ is guilty of a
hoax UNLESS he provides evidence of some analysis made prior to publishing these
images on the MUFON NJ website and his own. All inquiries and questions should be
sent to Ken Pfeifer / MUFONNJ, we'll see if they care to comment on this case.

Ken Pfeifer / MUFONNJ website with the original photos.

One of the original photos with the EXIF.

Ken Pfeifer's website also with the two original photos.

reply posted on 25-3-2010 @ 04:46 PM by Soloist

Not about to wade through this thread, but due to some of the automatic belief responses, I made a quick image to show people this is a hoax done by the same person.

reply posted on 25-3-2010 @ 06:45 PM by vinunleaded

No please don't point out the things that make these pictures fake.
Better yet, please make more fake photos so people can discuss about the technical stuff like the "propulsion system" etc. It strengthens their belief

reply posted on 25-3-2010 @ 06:54 PM by drew hempel

reply to post by vinunleaded

Ha -- any search of a UFO database while reveal that the triangle craft is

1) not a blimp

2) accelerates "instantly" - electrogravitic

3) is commonly seen.

For example after a triangle craft flew over our land -- first the hill, then our tree, then our garage!! -- I did some research. Summer 1997. Not till 2000 did I happen upon the same exact type of sighting -- low flying triangle making a humming noise, lights on each corner. Then I realized I was not alone and so I pursued further research. Curt Sutherly's UFO Mysteries is a great source on triangle craft.

4) MN Mufon database has some half a dozen triangle sightings. WI -- just over the river -- had a sighting where the craft accelerated "instantly."

I've posted several other triangle sightings.

When I saw the big black triangle -- so close I could throw a rock at it -- I had never heard of this craft. But then I found out there was a mass sighting of a triangle ufo in my area in 1978. Nick Redfern has military records of a triangle craft on a U.S. base in the U.K. in the late 1940s.

So that's a government document!

Yes the big black triangle is REAL -- too bad the witnesses on UFO Hunters never even saw the craft -- just the lights. So UFO Hunters had to waste everyone's time firing up helium balloons -- just to make sure the witnesses might not have seen helium balloons.

And yes there's some other deliberate hoaxes on youtube of flying triangles -- just to prove that hoaxes can be done.

Wow -- I'm impressed! Is it possible that there can be hoaxes on fake photos and even fake videos -- and also a real military triangle craft?

No I don't think so even though I saw one so close I could have hit it with a rock! haha.

Yep triangle craft are a real secret military craft using a secret propulsion system.

reply posted on 25-3-2010 @ 08:44 PM by Signals

reply to post by Soloist

Hey

where did you get the 2008 photo?

reply posted on 25-3-2010 @ 08:55 PM by cripmeister

reply to post by free_spirit

Good to know. Fixed your links.

Mufon NJ

Mufon NJ triangle photo

reply posted on 25-3-2010 @ 11:02 PM by Soloist