Who is Behind the Mysterious Flying Triangles?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Rodsw
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Flying Triangles
AI Thread Summary
Mysterious flying triangles have been reported globally, often described as hovering silently and performing extraordinary maneuvers that defy conventional physics. Some sightings may be misidentified aircraft or even night hang-gliders, leading to speculation about their true nature. The discussion includes references to historical accounts and military encounters, particularly the Belgium flap of the late 1980s, which involved F-16 pilots chasing these objects. While some argue for extraterrestrial explanations, others emphasize the likelihood of earthly origins, such as advanced military technology or atmospheric phenomena. Overall, the debate continues, highlighting the challenges of distinguishing between genuine UFOs and misidentified objects.
Rodsw
Messages
31
Reaction score
0
http://www.ufoevidence.org/Cases/CaseView.asp?section=Triangle
http://www.ufoevidence.org/topics/triangles.htm

They have been sighted all over the world including a friend of mine who saw it up close just hovering about 4 storey high in a 2 storey home almost covering it. Who created them? The US Department of Defense? But why do they keep hovering at people houses and scaring them? They can execute fast acceleration and 90 degree turn at say 2000 km/hour that seems to cancel inertia and defy physics. What are they? Are they triangular baloons? Has anyone seen them here?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I have no idea what they are.

I can tell you, though, that I met a guy who saw one and told me about it in the late 1970's. That is: he told me about it in the late 1970's. This was before they became incorporated into UFO lore.

He said he and a friend were lying out in a field on a hot summer night looking up at the stars. A huge triangular shape passed slowly over them. They couldn't make out any details or features. The only reason they were aware of it is because it blocked out a huge triangular section of the sky as it went over.
 
I think it's safe to say that a surprisingly high number of them are misidentified airplanes. Not all of them, certainly, but the "prodigious number" of flying triangle sightings is surely bolstered by misidentified airplanes.

Secondly, a few that I've heard of, actually have turned out to be triangular balloons (interestingly enough), so that's not impossible.

Additionally, I know that in my area, out on a local (ocean) beach, a sport known as "night gliding" has gained popularity. It's the suicidal act of hang gliding in the middle of the night. It's also illegal in New Hampshire. A few sightings that have made the local newspaper ended in the re-arrest of repeat offenders; apparently the police know how to recognize the signs, but the public doesn't.

I should be clear, I have no idea how prevalent this activity is, and I've never seen it in person, but I understand that they use marker lights that don't flash and sometimes carry hand-held spotlights to find places to land... you can imagine the effect it might have on an unknowing observer.

Lastly, I know I've misidentified RC airplanes at night. There's a field near the county courthouse where folks are allowed to fly RC airplanes day and night. Turns out, you can't hear an RC airplane very well over slight background sounds; it's basically white noise and blends in very well. That gives the illusion of something silently flying over a field. Like I said, I've been tricked by this long ago... but now I know what to look for.

I'm sure there are PLENTY that have not been explained or cannot be explained this way. However, you have to ask yourself, if there are so many amazing explanations, isn't it pretty likely that they all have earthly explanations?
 
Speaking hypothetically, if they were real spaceships could we draw any conclusions from their demonstration of technology? For example, do they manipulate gravity fields as a form of propulsion?

This is a debunking discussion. So I will give you something to debunk.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8285709939745631584
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mazulu said:
Speaking hypothetically, if they were real spaceships could we draw any conclusions from their demonstration of technology? For example, do they manipulate gravity fields as a form of propulsion?

Given that modern airplanes don't require "manipulation of gravity fields as a form of propulsion" yet they seem to fly on a routine basis, I don't see any reason to introduce such wild speculation. Furthermore, modern aircraft are generally triangular in shape.

So... speaking hypothetically, if they were "real spaceships" (operating in the Earth's atmosphere), I would assume that they are using airfoils operating in accordance with Bernoulli's principle and the Kutta-Joukowski theorem. We know this works with triangular spacecraft ... no speculation needed.

http://images3.jetphotos.net/img/2/1/7/6/34815_1273322671_tb.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
FlexGunship said:
Given that modern airplanes don't require "manipulation of gravity fields as a form of propulsion" yet they seem to fly on a routine basis, I don't see any reason to introduce such wild speculation.
There is reason to apply wild speculation if we accept the accounts of these craft being able to hover and other strange maneuvers. Most people are pretty familiar with how aircraft can move and how they can't. I find it hard to believe they could be so easily misidentified.

OK, so switch the Space Shuttle for a Hawker Harrier, but frankly, I find it almost as implausible that people all over the world are seeing all these Hawker Harriers floating around at night with nary a positive ID.Flex's night-hang-gliders actually sounds pretty plausible. They would very nicely describe many of the maneuvers people describe, and many people are not aware of just how hang-gliders can move, so it makes mis-identification more plausible. And they're silent.
 
At 44 minutes into the video, there are Belgium military officers who describe there encounter, and chase, of a triangle shaped UFO. At 55min, the Belgium Air Force is on alert. 2 F-16's chase the triangle shaped object. They locked onto it with on-board radio, but the craft bolts out of range.
 
Last edited:
Mazulu said:
If they are "real space-ships" then we should wonder where they were built and by whom. We might also wonder if someone has a working Alcubierre drive.

Yeah, maybe... I don't really wonder that, though. Hearing reports of airborne geometry and thinking first of Alcubierre drive is like hearing reports of facial tissue sales and thinking alien biological warfare.

Kind of a non sequitur.

DaveC426913 said:
There is reason to apply wild speculation if we accept the accounts of these craft being able to hover and other strange maneuvers. Most people are pretty familiar with how aircraft can move and how they can't. I find it hard to believe they could be so easily misidentified.

Meh. I've shared my UFO stories on this forum before. I'm pretty well versed in human flight, and I've certainly let my imagination run wild with something that later turned out to be just a plane. A steeply-banked cargo plane seen at night makes for quite an optical illusion.

I had an ex-girlfriend who was convinced there was a flying saucer outside of Taco Bell. Just from her description, I was able to determine it was a spotlight hitting a cloud. The moment I said that to her, she said: "Oh my god, you're right!"

DaveC426913 said:
OK, so switch the Space Shuttle for a Hawker Harrier, but frankly, I find it almost as implausible that people all over the world are seeing all these Hawker Harriers floating around at night with nary a positive ID.

No, but there are a lot of social forces at work with these things. Maybe one person saw a Harrier (just as an example, not actually suggesting it as an explanation) and created the archetype for the flying-triangle report. Other reports of other, more mundane, phenomena are artificially lumped with the original report, memories are distorted, and witnesses are given more credibility because of "similar" events.

DaveC426913 said:
Flex's night-hang-gliders actually sounds pretty plausible. They would very nicely describe many of the maneuvers people describe, and many people are not aware of just how hang-gliders can move, so it makes mis-identification more plausible. And they're silent.

Like I said before, I've never seen it in person... but, as I understand it, most of the reports come in as UFOs (triangle, I would assume) and the police know exactly what to look for now. I can only imagine their reactions to the first few reports and the struggle to explain them or to even react appropriately.

I used to be a total UFO nut. UFO books were my second favorite (after dinosaur books) when I was growing up and I still buy quite a few of them. But the sad fact is that most UFO reports have nothing of value in them. We should resist the urge to put more weight on these stories than they deserve because the implications are so fantastical!

There are currently 181 known California Condors in the wild; they live (almost entirely) in remote and un-populated areas. Furthermore, it's hard to find numbers, but I suspect that there are fewer amateur birdwatchers then there are amateur UFO hunters... yet...

condor.jpg


VERSUS

1990belgium.jpg


You don't have to lecture me on how people don't plan to see UFOs, and they're not prepared, and how difficult it is to photograph at night... I get it all.

But over time, the quality of amateur bird photos has increased proportionally with the quality of camera equipment.

The photographs of UFOs, however... can you tell which one is from the 1960s and which one is from the era of amazing consumer digital photography?

http://www.ufo-chat.com/pics/PicHist30t.jpg http://www.ufo-chat.com/pics/Poland2003-3t.jpg Image sources:
http://nwpassages.wordpress.com/2010/12/22/up-on-the-rooftop-reindeer-pause/
http://ufos.about.com/od/visualproofphotosvideo/ig/Best-UFO-Photographs/1990belgium-jpg.htm
http://www.ufo-chat.com/ufopics.php?show=all
 
Last edited by a moderator:
In the OP the ufoevidence.org website is cited, so it seems to be acceptable to the moderators and others on this thread. So I ask to be forgiven for citing the same source in reference to the famous Belgium flap of '89 and '90. This is by far the best investigated case involving our topic, Flying Triangles.

http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc473.htm
"...the two photos supports statements by the pilots that the UFO dove from 2,000 meters (7,000 ft) to 00, indicating that it was below the 200 meter limit on the radar. This occurred in ONE second."

The F-16 pilots plus up to (4) radar sets have the UFOs performing sharp turns and accelerations, including diving either into the ground or stopping short in a ridiculously brief amount of time and space before ascending again. On the surface, this might be evidence that gravity was being manipulated, or more likely that the object simply lacked much in the way of mass and consisted mainly of energetically ionized particles which might change speed, altitude and direction in response to radar or other stimuli.

I now cite Ivan Seeking. Well researched was he on the subject of UFOs and radar.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2616326&postcount=20

In brief, I think that although Flying Triangles pose a slightly more difficult problem than balls of light, the physics involved are similar enough that the prosaic explanations of unusual meteorological occurrences and electrical eccentricities are greatly to be preferred over extraterrestrial, i.e., alien hypotheses. The going gets stickier when assertions are made, like by the Belgians, that the objects exhibited intelligent behavior. But these claims are countered by experimentally known adverse effects of electromagnetic fields upon human consciousness, and too by the innate desire for exotic solutions driven by the wishful thinking and imagination of overawed humans.

Respectfully submitted,
Steve
 
Last edited:
  • #10
Dotini said:
The F-16 pilots plus up to (4) radar sets have the UFOs performing sharp turns and accelerations, including diving either into the ground or stopping short in a ridiculously brief amount of time and space before ascending again. On the surface, this might be evidence that gravity was being manipulated, or more likely that the object simply lacked much in the way mass and consisted mainly of energetically ionized particles which might change speed, altitude and direction in response to radar or other stimuli.
So you think that the radar was seeing energetically ionized particles (cosmic rays?) while the people on the ground were seeing triangle shaped objects. Perhaps I'm biased, but that explanation doesn't seem to fit. There were observers on the ground watching the F-16's chase the triangle.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #11
Mazulu said:
So you think that the radar was seeing energetically ionized particles (cosmic rays?)

Not cosmic rays (though these may play a role). Plasma.

Mazulu said:
while the people on the ground were seeing triangle shaped objects.

Plasma well organized into multiple DLs.

Respectfully submitted,
Steve
 
Last edited:
  • #12
DaveC426913 said:
Flex's night-hang-gliders actually sounds pretty plausible. They would very nicely describe many of the maneuvers people describe, and many people are not aware of just how hang-gliders can move, so it makes mis-identification more plausible. And they're silent.
The old, original hang gliders were very triangular. That being the case, and, given Flex's reports of people hang gliding at night even though they're not supposed to be, my train of thought runs less toward misidentification of military and commercial craft and more toward what happened with crop circles.

Once the hang gliders heard reports of strange flying triangles at night, and realized people were talking about them, a secret hoax culture may have evolved wherein increasingly larger hang gliders were developed and flown simply to whip the UFO believers up and have a good laugh about it. They may now be hybrids: part balloon part aerofoil, who knows what dedicated amateurs could come up with. If the complexity of crop circles is an example, hoaxed flying triangles could be more sophisticated than you'd suspect.

Once people are surprised by such a thing, they'd start seeing it do all kinds of things it probably isn't actually doing, and all sense of scale, speed, etc. in verbal reports would be unreliable.
 
  • #13
Mazulu said:
Starting at 27 minutes (sorry for changing the clip) of the video link,
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8285709939745631584
There are multiple sightings of a long cylindrical object with a strobe at 30,000 feet.

At 44 minutes into the video, there are Belgium military officers who describe there encounter, and chase, of a triangle shaped UFO. At 55min, the Belgium Air Force is on alert. 2 F-16's chase the triangle shaped object. They locked onto it with on-board radio, but the craft bolts out of range.

At 1 minute 16s into the video they show a short bit of footage of a well-known "encounter" that was so badly reported and debunked, it ruins any credibility this show might have had.

As any moderately intelligent amateur with a mildly critical eye could see, the artifacts were out-of-focus particle flecks but were flogged as semi-transparent rotating disks of significant size.
 

Attachments

  • ufo.jpg
    ufo.jpg
    13 KB · Views: 637
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #14
Dotini said:
Not cosmic rays (though these may play a role). Plasma.
Plasma well organized into multiple DLs.
Plasma from what? Also, what does DL stand for?

zoobyshoe said:
Once the hang gliders heard reports of strange flying triangles at night, and realized people were talking about them, a secret hoax culture may have evolved wherein increasingly larger hang gliders were developed and flown simply to whip the UFO believers up and have a good laugh about it. They may now be hybrids: part balloon part aerofoil, who knows what dedicated amateurs could come up with. If the complexity of crop circles is an example, hoaxed flying triangles could be more sophisticated than you'd suspect.
Hand gliders might explain some hoaxes involving triangles that just hang there in the sky. But the Belgian airforce locked onto triangles that they found in their air space. Within 5 seconds, the triangles were observed to break lock by accelerating rapidly. You can't get gliders to do that. The argument could be made that these triangles are secret (under research) US military planes. Military planes can detect radar lock and respond accordingly.

I wish that the evidence was more clear cut. The skeptics can always say that fuzzy pictures are not particularly convincing. And, admittedly, it is "non sequiter" to see fuzzy pictures and then start talking about Alcubierre drives and gravity manipulation. I don't know what to tell you. I wish that theorists would start looking at this kind of technology, even if evidence of their existence isn't convincing.
 
  • #15
Mazulu said:
Hand gliders might explain some hoaxes involving triangles that just hang there in the sky. But the Belgian airforce locked onto triangles that they found in their air space. Within 5 seconds, the triangles were observed to break lock by accelerating rapidly. You can't get gliders to do that. The argument could be made that these triangles are secret (under research) US military planes. Military planes can detect radar lock and respond accordingly.
A lot of people have suggested that flying triangles might be military engineered "lifter" technology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionocraft
 
  • #16
Mazulu said:
Plasma from what? Also, what does DL stand for?

Plasma is a natural, routine and ordinary feature of our atmosphere. Thunderclouds, particularly the anvil section, are highly ionized. The lightning that arcs from, to and inside thunderclouds creates even more of it. Cosmic rays, as you noted, as well as the solar wind and CME's provide a source of atmospheric plasma by intermittently penetrating our magnetosphere. There are other sources.

DL (double layer) is term used by plasma physicists and electrical engineers. To progress, we will need their help.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_layer_(plasma)

Mazulu said:
...fuzzy pictures are not particularly convincing.

You will never see a non-fuzzy UFO picture that isn't fake or mistaken identity. Fuzzy, diffused and amorphous is precisely what characterizes atmospheric plasma phenomena.

Please take a few minutes and read through my thread, "Electrical Eccentricity?", also found in this forum. This will provide essential background for understanding unidentified aerial phenomena, UAP.

Respectfully,
Steve
 
Last edited:
  • #17
Mazulu said:
I wish that the evidence was more clear cut. The skeptics can always say that fuzzy pictures are not particularly convincing. And, admittedly, it is "non sequiter" to see fuzzy pictures and then start talking about Alcubierre drives and gravity manipulation. I don't know what to tell you. I wish that theorists would start looking at this kind of technology, even if evidence of their existence isn't convincing.

There's a reason they are theoretical. It is because we simply don't have anything close to whatever technology is required to operate devices such as this, assuming that they do in fact work of course. There is no known way to alter gravity and spacetime to make these drives work. As such there is almost no way to "look" any closer at this hypothetical technology. It isn't that the evidence isn't convincing, it is that there simply isn't any evidence at all for the existence of these types of drives.
 
  • #18
Mazulu said:
I was looking at "lifters" and DL (double layer) explanations. For either of these explanations to fit, people on the ground would be expected to smell ozone.
Good point, and maybe they do, but it's lost in the overwhelm of the sighting.

I have to assume that a Belgian Air Force pilot is very familiar with his radar equipment.
Depends what you mean by "familiar". The assumption of radar expertise could lead you astray. Don't know if you saw the Mythbusters episode with the airplane on the conveyer belt proof, but I was startled to find out the pilot of the plane, himself, didn't think he'd be able to take off!
 
  • #19
zoobyshoe said:
Good point, and maybe they do, but it's lost in the overwhelm of the sighting.


Depends what you mean by "familiar". The assumption of radar expertise could lead you astray. Don't know if you saw the Mythbusters episode with the airplane on the conveyer belt proof, but I was startled to find out the pilot of the plane, himself, didn't think he'd be able to take off!
It's really a fighter pilot's job to know what is in their air space. They need to be able to identify friendly air crafts, enemy air crafts, airliners; they need to know where a potentially hostile air craft is going. No fighter pilot wants to radio back to the tower saying: "there's a bogey around here somewhere, but I lost it." If a pilot says that they locked on to an aircraft, and it maneuvered out of lock, I see no reason to doubt that.

Drakkith,
Sorry, I blurted out what you didn't want to know.
 
  • #20
Mazulu said:
If a pilot says that they locked on to an aircraft, and it maneuvered out of lock, I see no reason to doubt that.
Up until recently certain plane crashes were being blamed on pilot error. It turned out they were caused by what are now recognized as microbursts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microburst

In the same way, any radar effect that seems to have a known cause might actually be a "freak" effect that happens occasionally. (The whole point of stealth, as I understand it, is to exploit the conditions under which radar doesn't work.) In principle, nothing unusual that happens on a radar screen has, necessarily to mean something unusual actually happened. If a radar report suggests extra-terrestrial space craft, I'd look into the more realistic possibility of freak radar glitches first.
 
  • #21
This thread got out of hand and has been cleaned up. Overly-speculative posts are not allowed. I would like to remind all members that if they see an example of an inappropriate post please press the "report" button rather than replying. Stick to debunking, not speculating on the possible propulsion of vague camera smudges.
 
  • #22
zoobyshoe said:
Up until recently certain plane crashes were being blamed on pilot error. It turned out they were caused by what are now recognized as microbursts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microburst

In the same way, any radar effect that seems to have a known cause might actually be a "freak" effect that happens occasionally. (The whole point of stealth, as I understand it, is to exploit the conditions under which radar doesn't work.) In principle, nothing unusual that happens on a radar screen has, necessarily to mean something unusual actually happened. If a radar report suggests extra-terrestrial space craft, I'd look into the more realistic possibility of freak radar glitches first.

I think the last thing the Belgian air force wants people to think is that they can't tell the difference between an aircraft and a micro-burst. Also, any such bugs in their radar system would be classified; therefore, I don't know if weather anomalies are a reasonable explanation.
 
  • #23
Mazulu said:
Drakkith,
Sorry, I blurted out what you didn't want to know.

Umm, what?
 
  • #24
Drakkith said:
Umm, what?

I think they deleted my post. I speculated about gravity manipulation, but the monitors deleted it. Oh well, that's life.
 
  • #25
Mazulu said:
Hand gliders might explain some hoaxes involving triangles that just hang there in the sky. But the Belgian airforce locked onto triangles that they found in their air space. Within 5 seconds, the triangles were observed to break lock by accelerating rapidly. You can't get gliders to do that. The argument could be made that these triangles are secret (under research) US military planes. Military planes can detect radar lock and respond accordingly.

I think you're treating radar as through it were infallible. In actuality, radar and radar operators are subject to just as many mistaken and erroneous observations as a visual observer (more perhaps, because of the unnatural nature of height as shown on radar screens).

Not trying to be disrespectful, but you seem to have a "video game" grasp of radar operation. The idea that you can track a "target" is fallacious. Radar updates in discrete passes, not continually... so all you can say is that, previously, there was an echo at x location, and now now there is an echo at x location. There is no way to show that the echo is a physical entity, let alone the same physical entity.

This is one of the reasons why transponders are so important in commercial air flight.

zoobyshoe said:
Depends what you mean by "familiar". The assumption of radar expertise could lead you astray. Don't know if you saw the Mythbusters episode with the airplane on the conveyer belt proof, but I was startled to find out the pilot of the plane, himself, didn't think he'd be able to take off!

Hah, ha... good point. My dad works for IBM and used to spend a lot of time at the Nashua, NH FAA eastern regional headquarters (handling flights outside of airport control, transitioning between regional centers, and monitoring inbound and outbound international flights). As he tells it, there are clearly some radar operators who are more highly respected than others and who are more capable of interpreting the data that a radar screen offers them.

The idea that radar is a device that reveals truths about the contents of the sky is untrue.

Mazulu said:
It's really a fighter pilot's job to know what is in their air space. They need to be able to identify friendly air crafts, enemy air crafts, airliners; they need to know where a potentially hostile air craft is going. No fighter pilot wants to radio back to the tower saying: "there's a bogey around here somewhere, but I lost it." If a pilot says that they locked on to an aircraft, and it maneuvered out of lock, I see no reason to doubt that.

What makes you think a fighter wouldn't quickly communicate a problem to anyone that might be able to help him. Keep in mind, there are reports of fighter pilots chasing weather balloons making claims like "it's moving too fast for me... now it's behind me!" Because, when you approach a roughly-stationary object at 1100mph, it can seem to suddenly appear behind you... or zip below you... or just over your head. Furthermore, your concept of speed is skewed when the ground 10,000 feet below you is your only reference. All of a sudden a stationary balloon seems to be moving unbelievably fast!

And no, I don't believe fighter pilots chase balloons as part of their normal training. They usually chase other objects of comparable speed.

Mazulu said:
I think they deleted my post. I speculated about gravity manipulation, but the monitors deleted it. Oh well, that's life.

It's not just life... it's proper forum moderation.
 
  • #26
FlexGunship said:
Because, when you approach a roughly-stationary object at 1100mph, it can seem to suddenly appear behind you... or zip below you... or just over your head. Furthermore, your concept of speed is skewed when the ground 10,000 feet below you is your only reference. All of a sudden a stationary balloon seems to be moving unbelievably fast!

And no, I don't believe fighter pilots chase balloons as part of their normal training. They usually chase other objects of comparable speed.
Still, it seems to me that of all things a fighter pilot would be skilled at, being able to judge the distance to - and speed of - objects in the sky around them would be near the top of their list. It's pretty much what they do.
 
  • #27
DaveC426913 said:
Still, it seems to me that of all things a fighter pilot would be skilled at, being able to judge the distance to - and speed of - objects in the sky around them would be near the top of their list. It's pretty much what they do.
Sure. But is it really unreasonable to think that some of them, somewhere, some of the time get it wrong?

Also: excellent post at #25 flex.
 
  • #28
Mazulu said:
I think the last thing the Belgian air force wants people to think is that they can't tell the difference between an aircraft and a micro-burst. Also, any such bugs in their radar system would be classified; therefore, I don't know if weather anomalies are a reasonable explanation.
You misinterpreted my post. I was suggesting microbursts account for these, specific, radar anomalies.

My logic was:

1.) Phenomena sometimes get misattributed to the wrong cause because the actual cause isn't yet known to science (pilot error vs microbursts).

therefore

2.) If some data seems to suggest something outlandish (extra-terrestrial craft), it's more likely you've come up against a data-collecting glitch no one was aware existed.
 
Last edited:
  • #29
DaveC426913 said:
Still, it seems to me that of all things a fighter pilot would be skilled at, being able to judge the distance to - and speed of - objects in the sky around them would be near the top of their list. It's pretty much what they do.

Sure, but how many comparable situations are there? Maybe buzzing a very tall radio tower could be comparable, but realistically speaking, how many stationary objects are there in the sky?

To be fair, I'm playing devil's advocate a bit here. I know a few recreational pilots and a couple of commercial pilots, but I don't know any fighter pilots personally. I don't think that, in general, balloons account for night-time sightings by pilots of flying triangles; it was an example intended to show that no single person (regardless of training or accomplishment) is a bastion of truth and perfect observation. One can always imagine a mundane situation that could, conceivably, baffle the "expert" at hand.

To further carry that idea, you have to ask yourself: "regarding such a fantastic claim, if a mistake could have been made, who is to judge that it wasn't?" In other words: "if a source is not perfectly reliable, then someone repeating that source diminished the reliability of it further, and someone reporting that secondary source is less reliable still, and is certainly in no position to vouch for the quality of the original report."

When we talk about radar reports, pilot sightings, and the like, we are citing (clearly as non-experts) tertiary information at best. Attempts to make this type of report seem impressive are really lost on me.
 
  • #30
Same video, http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8285709939745631584
time 02:15
On 11/17/86, military radar detected an intermittent object behind the commercial jet. Simultaneously, the pilot of a Boeing cargo jet observed 3 objects resembling a "shelled walnut". The main craft was 2x the size of an aircraft carrier. After the object matched the commercial jet's speed (velocity), the objects rose from 2000' below up to a point directly in front of the cockpit's window. The objects glowed very brightly. The objects wobbled as they moved. The pilot requested that military jets be scrambled because he felt like the objects were too close.

So we have visual sighting of 3 wobbling "shelled walnut" looking object 2x the size of an aircraft carrier that rose 2000' to the cockpit window, was detected by military radar, and then left the area. There were two more similar events within a few months.

The best debunk that fits these events would be weather conditions plus pilot hysteria. Maybe all UFO sightings can be attributed to forms of hysteria?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #31
Mazulu said:
The best debunk that fits these events would be weather conditions plus pilot hysteria. Maybe all UFO sightings can be attributed to forms of hysteria?

That might not quite be the best debunk. Either way, you don't need to attribute all UFO sightings to something for it to be true of a few.

A very old post for you to review (notice that the quoted version has bad URLs, but if you follow the link provided just below, you can still visit each website).

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2871349&postcount=11

Keep in mind this phenomenon consists of observations of objects that have the follow characteristics:

I'm sure people who see UFOs honestly believe whatever they say. ("Never attribute to malice that which can adequately be explained by stupidity.")
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #32
Mazulu said:
Same video, http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8285709939745631584
time 02:15
On 11/17/86, military radar detected an intermittent object behind the commercial jet. Simultaneously, the pilot of a Boeing cargo jet observed 3 objects resembling a "shelled walnut". The main craft was 2x the size of an aircraft carrier. After the object matched the commercial jet's speed (velocity), the objects rose from 2000' below up to a point directly in front of the cockpit's window. The objects glowed very brightly. The objects wobbled as they moved. The pilot requested that military jets be scrambled because he felt like the objects were too close.

So we have visual sighting of 3 wobbling "shelled walnut" looking object 2x the size of an aircraft carrier that rose 2000' to the cockpit window, was detected by military radar, and then left the area. There were two more similar events within a few months.

The best debunk that fits these events would be weather conditions plus pilot hysteria. Maybe all UFO sightings can be attributed to forms of hysteria?
I read part of the transcript of an interview with that pilot a couple years ago. The people on the ground offered to have military craft scrambled to check things out. The pilot said he'd read reports of UFOs shooting destructive beams of some sort at military craft, so he refused the offer.

I don't know about hysteria in other incidents, but that Japanese pilot was clearly already a believer and probably spent most of his flight time looking over his shoulder for Alien craft.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #33
zoobyshoe said:
Don't know if you saw the Mythbusters episode with the airplane on the conveyer belt proof, but I was startled to find out the pilot of the plane, himself, didn't think he'd be able to take off!

I don't see why that mistake should be surprising. Flying a plane is a practical skill, not a theoretical one. You need a minimum level of "intelligence" to learn, but you certainly don't need even a high-school level of physics education.

If taking off from conveyor belts ever becomes a standard flying technique, pilot training will teach what needs to be known about it. Until then, it's no more relevant to a fixed-wing pilot than knowing now to control a helicopter in hover.
 
  • #34
zoobyshoe said:
I read part of the transcript of an interview with that pilot a couple years ago. The people on the ground offered to have military craft scrambled to check things out. The pilot said he'd read reports of UFOs shooting destructive beams of some sort at military craft, so he refused the offer.

I don't know about hysteria in other incidents, but that Japanese pilot was clearly already a believer and probably spent most of his flight time looking over his shoulder for Alien craft.

There is no evidence that UFO's have ever attacked anyone. But if they do decide to blow something up, as a demonstration of their existence, I recommend that they vaporize one or two universities. Debunk this...zzzzzttttt...boom!:eek:
 
  • #35
AlephZero said:
I don't see why that mistake should be surprising. Flying a plane is a practical skill, not a theoretical one. You need a minimum level of "intelligence" to learn, but you certainly don't need even a high-school level of physics education.

If taking off from conveyor belts ever becomes a standard flying technique, pilot training will teach what needs to be known about it. Until then, it's no more relevant to a fixed-wing pilot than knowing now to control a helicopter in hover.

No. There's something wrong with a pilot who doesn't realize forward thrust is coming from the prop and not the tires.
 
  • #36
zoobyshoe said:
No. There's something wrong with a pilot who doesn't realize forward thrust is coming from the prop and not the tires.

Do you have the link to this episode of Mythbusters?
 
  • #37
Mazulu said:
Do you have the link to this episode of Mythbusters?
Yup:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #38
zoobyshoe said:
Yup:



The plane flies because air is flowing around the wings. What was this video suppose to demonstrate?:rolleyes:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #39
zoobyshoe said:
No. There's something wrong with a pilot who doesn't realize forward thrust is coming from the prop and not the tires.

So the video demonstrates that dumb people can fly planes too? Therefore it follows logically that if a pilot observed a UFO, he must be dumb? That doesn't seem like a very strong argument. I think that the individual pilot who saw the UFO would have to be tested for "dumbness".
 
  • #40
I just thought of a sure fire way a pilot can get evidence that the UFO he/she is observing is real. If the UFO gets too close to the plane, the pilot should deliberately crash into it. If it's just a weather pattern, the plane will fly right through it. If it's not, then an FAA investigation will reveal that the plane collided with something.
 
  • #41
Mazulu said:
I just thought of a sure fire way a pilot can get evidence that the UFO he/she is observing is real. If the UFO gets too close to the plane, the pilot should deliberately crash into it. If it's just a weather pattern, the plane will fly right through it. If it's not, then an FAA investigation will reveal that the plane collided with something.

A great plan except for cases when it's actually something real, such as as another plane.
 
  • #42
Mazulu said:
What was this video suppose to demonstrate?:rolleyes:
It demonstrates that thrust comes from the propeller and not the wheels. The surface on which that plane is sitting is being pulled in the reverse direction of take-off by a guy in a truck. Sone people think that would render the plane unable to take off. There were endless internet debates about this.

Mazulu said:
So the video demonstrates that dumb people can fly planes too? Therefore it follows logically that if a pilot observed a UFO, he must be dumb? That doesn't seem like a very strong argument. I think that the individual pilot who saw the UFO would have to be tested for "dumbness".
What follows logically is that you can't necessarily ascribe all kinds of expertise to people just because they're doing "what they do".

Mazulu said:
I just thought of a sure fire way a pilot can get evidence that the UFO he/she is observing is real. If the UFO gets too close to the plane, the pilot should deliberately crash into it. If it's just a weather pattern, the plane will fly right through it. If it's not, then an FAA investigation will reveal that the plane collided with something.
That pilot would deserve a Darwin Award for trying, anyway.
 
  • #43
Mazulu said:
But the Belgian airforce locked onto triangles that they found in their air space. Within 5 seconds, the triangles were observed to break lock by accelerating rapidly. You can't get gliders to do that. The argument could be made that these triangles are secret (under research) US military planes. Military planes can detect radar lock and respond accordingly.

The Belgian event is interesting because it involved the military and went public almost immediately. One explanation that seems possible is that we [the US] were toying with our allies and projecting false RADAR images from a nearby Stealth Fighter [or by some other means]. The photos and reports of crafts seen in the area fit the profile for a Stealth, right down to the red light on the bottom. Also, the object seen on RADAR and chased was never observed visually. And it appeared to dive below ground level for a short time.

We now know that we transmitted false RADAR data in the first Gulf war, so the technology has been around for quite some time. As a matter of fact, I once proposed this technology in a physics class as a way avoid speeding tickets. :biggrin:
 
  • #44
Ivan Seeking said:
The Belgian event is interesting because it involved the military and went public almost immediately. One explanation that seems possible is that we [the US] were toying with our allies and projecting false RADAR images from a nearby Stealth Fighter [or by some other means]. The photos and reports of crafts seen in the area fit the profile for a Stealth, right down to the red light on the bottom. Also, the object seen on RADAR and chased was never observed visually. And it appeared to dive below ground level for a short time.

We now know that we transmitted false RADAR data in the first Gulf war, so the technology has been around for quite some time. As a matter of fact, I once proposed this technology in a physics class as a way avoid speeding tickets. :biggrin:

I want to assume that those who witnessed the event were sincere about what they observed or thought they observed. In other words, let's assume it's not a conspiracy. For the Belgium event, there were:
1. hovering triangles: explained as handgliders with spotlights;
2. scrambled jets and ground radar mistaking weather patters for triangles but not visually observing them. or,
3. scrambled jets observing a secret US made triangular shaped stealth fighter plane with three spot lights and high maneuverability.

I think #3 makes a little bit more sense without being "out of this world". Handgliders and incompetent pilots and radar technicians just seems a bit of a stretch.
 
  • #45
Mazulu said:
I want to assume that those who witnessed the event were sincere about what they observed or thought they observed. In other words, let's assume it's not a conspiracy. For the Belgium event, there were:
1. hovering triangles: explained as handgliders with spotlights;
2. scrambled jets and ground radar mistaking weather patters for triangles but not visually observing them. or,
3. scrambled jets observing a secret US made triangular shaped stealth fighter plane with three spot lights and high maneuverability.

I think #3 makes a little bit more sense without being "out of this world". Handgliders and incompetent pilots and radar technicians just seems a bit of a stretch.
Why you would think that "secret military project" is a more reasonable explanation than mistaken pilot, radar technician or media hyperbole is beyond me.
 
  • #46
Ivan Seeking said:
We now know that we transmitted false RADAR data in the first Gulf war, so the technology has been around for quite some time.

Many years ago I worked on the B2 program, and I was often the first person in the "white world" to hear when a plane landed from a test flight. One time I had a conversation with the caller about how the UFO sightings would go through the roof during flights. If false radar is involved, I am 100% certain that this would explain the sightings and Belgian air force event. But then again, I am one of those boring people that believes all UFOs are of terrestrial origin.

Ivan Seeking said:
As a matter of fact, I once proposed this technology in a physics class as a way avoid speeding tickets. :biggrin:

Love it!
 
  • #47
Ms Music said:
But then again, I am one of those boring people that believes all UFOs are of terrestrial origin.
They are, but their propulsion system is derived from the plans for Tesla's Death Ray, which was stolen from his apartment on the day he died by agents of the Government and which technology is now a CIA black ops concern. They also have silent black helicopters that kidnap and mutilate cattle.
 
  • #48
Mazulu said:
3. scrambled jets observing a secret US made triangular shaped stealth fighter plane with three spot lights and high maneuverability.

I think #3 makes a little bit more sense without being "out of this world". Handgliders and incompetent pilots and radar technicians just seems a bit of a stretch.

The military pilots never directly observed the target. The photos and reports of observed crafts were public, not military.

As for mistaken RADAR hits, RADAR mirages and the like, these explanation do not seem to be consistent with a plane in pursuit and changing direction. Any weather phenomenon or mirage would be good for one or a few hits. At the least it would have to be a failure of the RADAR system.
 
Last edited:
  • #49
zoobyshoe said:
No. There's something wrong with a pilot who doesn't realize forward thrust is coming from the prop and not the tires.

Thrust doesn't make a plane take off. Lift does.

OK, so the pilot may have made an order-of-magnitude error estimating the ground effect of the conveyor belt on lift. But I would be a lot more worried flying with a pilot who didn't know that ground effect was important, than somebody who made that mistake.
 
  • #50
AlephZero said:
Thrust doesn't make a plane take off. Lift does.
This does not change what zooby said.

The thrust (which will move the plane, which will provide lift) comes from the prop. What the wheels are doing under the plane does not affect thrust or lift. It is troubling that a pilot would make such a mistake.
 

Similar threads

What is the truth behind the mysterious flying triangles?
Replies
2
Views
5K
UK MOD explanation for black triangle UFO's
Replies
7
Views
6K
Are UFOs or Mass Hysteria Behind Mysterious Deaths in India?
Replies
2
Views
12K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top