Triangular Aircraft

JadeStar

Zaphod58
reply to post by Zcustosmorum

 

Iraq and Afghanistan were low threat wars. They brought out a couple projects but there was no reason to use the more exotic projects, when the conventional forces we have were more than enough.

edit on 11/29/2013 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)

Exactly. There are no doubt weapons we'd only see if faced with an equal or superior power. ie: China, Russia, other Euro countries, etc.

This is likely a valid observation / argument. You don't take out
a full can of whoop-ass for a minor league opponent. The element
of surprise must also be of considerable benefit.

There are a number of papers that are buried on ATS that have been purged from the net describing what the average person would consider amazing technology, several of which have been demonstrated to work, and some from as far back as the 1990s.

I know that several of these are operational, after seeing evidence of it myself.

lostgirl
So, have you been keeping a watch out for 'orb lights'? 'Cause if one of those shows up you'll know for sure your 'triangle' wasn't military

Keep us posted!

p.s. Please don't take the humorous 'tone' for insincerity, it's a legitimate follow-up question...

You seem to take our relationship as adversarial or something..
I certainly don't. You express your opinions.. that's what adults
do.. also many mystical people are purely under the control of
the PSP entities anyway.. they can't help their responses.. they
literally have no or little free will in how they respond. I'm not
saying that describes you.. I don't have that information.

Of course I'm using this event as a data point for my own hypothesis.
As a matter of fact I did have an 'event' the day before this sighting,
which would make the sequence exactly OPPOSITE of my hypothesis.

But my hypothesis covers that eventuality too.. it's called "the PSP
entities are attempting to 'mess with me', as I'm 'hot on their
trail'.

Now I know that the majority of people reading this post about
the triangle want to believe it proves their point of view about
military hardware of some sort, and have no interest in the PSP
angle. So I'm not going to discuss the PSP angle in this thread.
It certainly COULD be a physical military craft.

Frankly that the physical appearance was so close to other such
triangle occurrences, I don't want to discuss the PSP angle
in this thread either. I'd like to hear about what others have
observed about the craft itself.

I'm actually surmising that I saw a bit more than a pure triangle
is due to the fact I'm a trained shaman; but that's just a theory.

Thanks,

KPB

reply to post by KellyPrettyBear

Okay first, I honestly apologize for so much of this post being off topic (and I honestly do mean this sincerely), I hope you'll forgive my need to respond to your comments...

I have to say, I truly don't take "our relationship as adversarial", I like you too much to want to be adversaries…

There just have been a couple times that I expressed - not an "opinion" per se, but an objective (as opposed to subjective) 'counter point' response to one of your opinions and instead of acknowledging the 'possible' validity of the perspective, you've ignored it altogether - so then I've tried to 'redirect' back to the point I'd made, only to have you respond defensively when no offense was intended…

…I've only ever had the intention of presenting alternate perspectives in hopes that you would give some consideration to the possibility that your 'conclusion' (on the given topic) 'might not' necessarily be the absolute 'last word' on the matter…

…and as I believe the evidence for that is in every post I've ever written to you, I would welcome your going back (if you wanted to take the time) and pointing out anything that you have felt to be offensive, because I do want to learn from the mistakes I make in 'relating' to others.

Second, I'm sorry I brought up the possible PSP aspect of your sighting (also sorry my attempt at bringing it up humorously offended, it was sincerely meant to be humorous, not sarcastic), I didn't know that you wanted to keep this thread separate from that theory…I am genuinely interested in learning from your 'explorations' into that theory, especially now that you've had an experience of your own…


KPB, I know you "don't care" what other people think of you, but just for the record, I do like you and have never meant any comments to be in any way antagonistic…here's the thing though…

…as a Shaman, you of all people, should be willing (and if you are, it does not always show) to thoroughly, objectively, examine differing perspectives on your 'conclusions', yet (and just being honest, not adversarial) when presented with alternate points of view, you do have a tendency - perhaps not consciously aware of it - to take offense at the suggestion that any perspective alternate to yours might be the more valid one…

Lastly, please don't be mad at me for writing so much off topic…I suffer some degree of insecurity - so have a deep need to 'not' be misunderstood….

Zaphod58
There are a number of papers that are buried on ATS that have been purged from the net describing what the average person would consider amazing technology, several of which have been demonstrated to work, and some from as far back as the 1990s.

I know that several of these are operational, after seeing evidence of it myself.

I'm pretty sure we have similar interests in this regard. I'm curious - which technologies do you think are currently operational? Quiet supersonic flight?

reply to post by 1ofthe9


I believe a quiet supersonic system is operational, and I've seen evidence that some kind of visual stealth system is in service.

reply to post by lostgirl


Thanks for your reply. And thanks for saying that you like me.
That is appreciated.

Now to answer your assertions.. frankly I don't see any value
in pasting each sentence you wrote and micro-analyzing it.

But there is some merit from my perspective in some of your
assertions. I certainly can appear to be 'dismissive' of other
people's thoughts sometimes. Now am I really being dismissive
and unwilling to consider their position? That's an interesting
question. I certainly don't claim sainthood. I'm certainly capable
of being 'short' with people. It's really about time management.
If someone is posting something that I studied for a month 20
years ago then discarded as having no value, then it's my
responsibility as a decent human being (I think I'm a decent
human being) to give something back, even if I don't find any
value in the topic, for the sake of the person. Now do I do
a good job with that? Maybe not always. So I apologize for
those times I fall short in that regard.

You need to understand, that 99% of anything I hear on ATS
when it comes to mystical, spiritual or religious topics I
consider to be part of the global misinformation campaign
that I spent a lifetime unlearning, and replacing with what
I personally find to be valid.

So I don't see how I can't participate in conversations related
to those topics, without of necessity causing a lot of friction.
I will sometimes write pages of response in why someone's
assertion is wrong. Sometimes I only write a paragraph
about why someone is wrong. And when I do that, I realize
it looks like I'm being 'dismissive' and I suppose that I am.

Now I've also stated that nobody died and made me king,
or made me Buddha. I share my observations and people
can treat them however they like. I can go months or
years without hearing a response that makes me wonder
if I've gotten something wrong. And yes! That makes me
look like a self-absorbed prick. Or maybe it makes me
look like someone who has thought about, and had
observations and experiences about nearly every
point a person could bring up.. and I've already formed
my data-rich opinion on that point. Now might I be
wrong? Of course. Perhaps I'm 100% wrong about
every last thing.

Frankly I might not bring any value to ATS and should
leave. I suppose for those who have read the book,
"The Trickster and the Paranormal" they probably
see me as a "Trickster"; as someone who tears down
most things that others assume to be true but doesn't
necessarily provide a substitute 'fact'. And I know this
would be irritating.

But I can't divulge everything that I know for reason
of personal safety of others, and for other reasons.
I know this makes me seem a bit 'mysterious' but
this is not the intended result. I've gone far beyond
my comfort zone already.

I hope this response helps you see why I respond the
way that I do. Or you can just assume that I'm a
dickhead. Whatever explanation works for you is
fine with me. And again, I apologize if I've
unnecessarily been rude or unkind or difficult.
That is not my intention.

KPB

Not sure if this link will be helpful but here it is...

mysteriousuniverse.org...

By the way, nice post!

Jacker44
Not sure if this link will be helpful but here it is...

mysteriousuniverse.org...

By the way, nice post!

Well good link.

There definitely seem to be at last three schools of thought on
these triangles: military, UFO, spiritual PSP. Also some think
it's pure delusion beamed into the mind with technology.. but
I myself don't list that as a reasonable option.. but to each
their own.

I personally wish that humans would stop fighting and dying
over religion; fighting and dying over accumulating wealth;
stop fighting and dying over everything BESIDES what actually
matters. Really, the only reason I even bother with UFO
stuff is that I'm interested in catching the man behind the
curtain and exposing what is going on, so that no future
UFO-Messiah plot materializes to gain total control over
all humans in the world. But that's just me.

In a sane world, I'd be interested in UFOs just for the
pure science of it! the fun of it!

Thanks,

KPB

reply to post by KellyPrettyBear

I am in Ocean City, NJ. I saw this thing hovering almost every night. then it woukd fky towards us. I saw it go right over my head. It was huge, gun metal grey, had several lights underneath, was completely silent and had a metal tail and a bunch of metal spikes sticking out. almost like a grid. I don't know what to think. It shined what seemed like a headlight. right at us. anyone have an opinion?

reply to post by Cyndigio


How big was it? Was it ever near a building or other terrain feature so you could accurately estimate size?

Did it seem to respond to your thoughts or actions?

A tail? Had you been watching Farscape recently?

Had you been 'wanting to see a ufo' ?

If s I common why no photos?

These things seem rather brazen when they are alk just "swamp gas weather balloons and the planet venus".

Or some people are pulling my leg!

On the other hand I did a search for triangles on mufon.com and there are tons of "delusional entries"

KPB

Zaphod58
reply to post by 1ofthe9

 

I believe a quiet supersonic system is operational, and I've seen evidence that some kind of visual stealth system is in service.

I'm guessing then that this is the result of Boeing's Bird of Prey development work. I know quiet supersonic work has gone on since the 1970's, and that there are flying demonstrators... So I think then what we're looking at is a Bird of Prey-derived UAV/UCAV that incorporates the two components - maybe bringing in the work done on the X-45 and X-47 on a COTS basis. It also fits the visual profile...

reply to post by 1ofthe9


So somerhing the size of a house going at mach speed could fly over my head a few inches and I wouldn't know unless I looked up - thats quite some tech.

reply to post by KellyPrettyBear


No. It means an aircraft can go supersonic without the boom to give it away.

reply to post by Zaphod58


Without disturbing the flight of a moth even?

I've watched all manner of military aircraft take off..and all are deafening and move a lot of air.

reply to post by KellyPrettyBear


It has nothing to do with the engine noise. Sonic booms don't have anythingto do with the engines.

reply to post by Zaphod58


Im saying that something the size of a house moving at mach speed ought to at least push some air molecules around even if it has no engine of any kind. Basic physics here.

reply to post by KellyPrettyBear


And the aircraft still does. The difference is that they use shaping and other technology so you don't get a boom.

reply to post by Zaphod58


My neighbor talking to his wife a block away was a deafening explosion of noise compared to that 'plane' which couldn't have been more than 1000 feet from my ears. That's quite some tech.

reply to post by KellyPrettyBear


And you used a laser measure to tell how far away it was? I've heard a lot of people say they can tell how far away a plane is, when the simple reality is you can't. I've seen planes that looked like they were flying next to each other that were 10,000 feet apart. And I've heard a B-2 go over head at 250 feet, and didn't hear it until it was past me.