Are Flying Triangles Real? Deciphering UFO Sightings and Technology

  • Thread starter Thread starter Glenn
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Flying Triangles
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around the validity of UFO sightings and the potential existence of advanced technology behind them. Participants express skepticism about government involvement and the plausibility of the physics explanations provided in linked articles, labeling them as "technobabble." Some mention credible scientific work on MagnetoHydroDynamic (MHD) technology as a possible explanation for such crafts. The conversation also touches on historical sightings of triangular UFOs, suggesting they may have been observed as far back as the 1970s, and speculates on their potential robotic nature for reconnaissance purposes. Overall, the thread highlights a mix of skepticism, curiosity, and speculation regarding the nature of these unidentified crafts.
Glenn
Please move this post if necessary as I was not sure which forum it would be best suited to.



Reference:

http://space.com/businesstechnology...gle_040902.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5897539/

Assuming these sightings are not mass hallucinations and that a craft of unknown origin is really there, how would it work?

Here is an explanation I found, but I can't make heads or tails of it. Can you?

http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc1567.htm

Thanks,
Glenn
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
dont tell me YOU haven't seen one yet? :-) Err, yeah, why would the government put disco lights on their flying triangles that they stole from alien technology. I figure they want to do it in style, so that in the event that some citizen happens to see one fly over their house, at super low altitutes mind you, they will seem like crackpots. But really, if the government had flying sausers why would they waste their time flying over peoples houses? Dont you think they would go to parts of space never before thought possible? But then again, the government always seems to do what makes the least amount of sense :-P and cost the most amount of money.
 
From outside of your country, it indeed looks like your governement is playing fool with you, like if that is very efficient to distract your attention :rolleyes: Looks to much like a spoof to be true, yet not all of them can lie, so it must be an organized spoof, and what other purpuse could it serve, apart from occupying you to worry about them ?

You probably have an advanced technology for spcacecraft. If they wanted to hide it, they could. They want to show you just enough so that you know, but not too much.

Or maybe this conspiracy theory is even less likely than true aliens. :-p
 
I do indeed find it particularly disturbing that either the government or aliens are into disco. Troubling indeed.

But my question is not in regard to who/what they are.

My question is, does the physics explanation offered in the third link hold up to scrutiny? Would this mechanism theoretically work as described? Please explain.

-Glenn
 
Glenn said:
Assuming these sightings are not mass hallucinations and that a craft of unknown origin is really there, how would it work?
Those are two awfully big assumptions.

I think such speculation is utterly useless. But to your specific question:
My question is, does the physics explanation offered in the third link hold up to scrutiny?
No, its utterly meaningless. It isn't an explanation, but rather Star-Trek style technobabble.
 
I would not be that affirmative. There are several possible ways that kind of spacecraft can fly. There is certainly not enough information in the link above : it is not reliable at all.

But there are true scientists working on MagnetoHydroDynamic (MHD) for instance, who claim this technology will one day provide such spacecraft . I find them reliable.

Your army keep many technologies secret. Even non-critical ones. This makes it difficult to say you cannot yet build this kind of devices. Other countries in the world also have a quite advanced and secrety spacecraft technologies.
 
We are facing a situation in which we know that some triangles are ours (as the 1989 sighting by Chris Gibson demonstrates), some triangles are big, some are small, some do not appear to be "ours." If there is a single terrestrial explanation for this, it would have to be a shadow group, most likely among people deeply immersed in the world of black defense technology who developed their own agenda independent of any formally established government. -Richard M. Dolan


I can sum up his paper in two words, I will just abbreviate, B.S. Also, I can sum him up in two words, Nut Job. Yikes, I dident think there REALLY were people as crazy as him!

I like my triangles equilaterial, but that's just me. You might be an isosceles man yourself. :smile:
 
humanino said:
But there are true scientists working on MagnetoHydroDynamic (MHD) for instance, who claim this technology will one day provide such spacecraft . I find them reliable.
MagnetoHydroDynamic Drive (from The Hunt for Red October) is real, works, and has nothing at all to do with aircraft or spacecraft propulsion.

http://www.sanu.ac.yu/English/Shipbuilding/Tema4.htm
Your army keep many technologies secret. Even non-critical ones. This makes it difficult to say you cannot yet build this kind of devices. Other countries in the world also have a quite advanced and secrety spacecraft technologies.
Technology can't exceed the limitations of physics.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #10
humanino said:
But there are true scientists working on MagnetoHydroDynamic (MHD) for instance, who claim this technology will one day provide such spacecraft . I find them reliable.

Russ is correct. Where did you hear about this?
 
  • #11
Ivan Seeking said:
Russ is correct. Where did you hear about this?
When I googled for the link I posted, I found quite a number of crackpot sites claiming it would work for spacecraft . Apparently, they have no idea what it is.
 
  • #12
Glenn said:
My question is, does the physics explanation offered in the third link hold up to scrutiny? Would this mechanism theoretically work as described? Please explain.

-Glenn

Do you mean this?
By no means am I an expert on the technology involved here. Those who say they are tell us that the TR-3B has something called a Magnetic Field Disruptor, which is a circular, highly pressurized, mercury-based plasma filled ring surrounding a rotatable crew compartment. The plasma is accelerated to extreme speeds which is said to result in "gravity disruption" and can neutralize the effect of gravity on mass by as much as 89 percent. This is not exactly antigravity, which provides a repulsive force, but for all intents and purposes makes the vehicle extremely light, with obvious correlations in performance, including acceleration in all directions.

During the Soviet era, Polish writer Stanislaw Lem was the most celebrated SF author in the Communist world... Solaris (1961) comes closer to being a traditional SF novel than most of his works, but its main thrust is still philosophical.

The new Gibarian tells Kelvin that Rheya will remain the same age, twenty years old. Phi-creatures are not immortal; they just don't age. This certainly has implications given that Kelvin, it appears, has an agenda different from the "divorce" desires of Snow and the cryptic plans of Sartorius to build the X-ray beamer to cover for constructing a magnetic field disruptor. Gibarian warns Kelvin that he is being betrayed, but again the reliability of anything is suspect.

http://www.wsu.edu/~hughesc/solaris.html

So, I guess the magnetic field disrupter does in fact work agains the Phi-creatures. :biggrin:
 
Last edited:
  • #13
Naudin's Lifters = Flying Triangles (small scale)

J. Naudin is well known for publicizing his triangle-shaped lifters. Perhaps the larger Flying Triangles use electric field effects and dielectric stresses to propel them.

I have checked a respectable website on UFO's concerning the Flying Triangles. A brief overview did not indicate whether or not the craft use electric propulsion.

In the early '90s, I contributed an article to the Electric Space Craft Journal on the Biefeld-Brown effect. The article was speculative, but I included a lot of physics about dielectrics, nonlinear electric fields, and internal forces at high voltages.

Naudin used air as a dielectric. Perhaps the Flying Triangles use a material with a greater dielectric constant and higher breakdown voltage.

Larry
 
  • #14
I think they are lighter-than-air craft, unpiloted and guided by satelite. If they are robotic reconisence vehicles (which do exist) that might explain why they are so frequently sited neard expressways and populated areas. They are programmed to look at things that might be of interest to a military or governmental inteligence gathering groupe. They would be attracted to motion and light. They should also be programmed to avoid being seen, but such robotic craft are always plagued with software problems in the early development stages. The sitings have probably helped the boys in "R & D" program the thing. We the general public are serving as their Beta Groupe.
 
  • #15
I recently watched a very strange and unusual UFO program made in the mid 70's - The Overlords of the UFOs. I do believe this is a one-of-a-kind, even in the UFO world. But that aside, a picture of a craft absolutely identical to the black triangle chased by the Belgian Air Force [which was made a public event], photographed, and seen by countless witnesses throughout the 90's, is seen with the characteristic red light on the bottom, and the sleek, flat, triangular shape. This surprised me. I thought the triangles as such were a more recent evolution in the UFO lore. They must go back to at least 1970 - the story took place at least that early, maybe even in the mid 60's.
 
Last edited:
  • #16
Ivan Seeking said:
I recently watched a very strange and unusual UFO program made in the mid 70's - The Overlords of the UFOs. I do believe this is a one-of-a-kind, even in the UFO world. But that aside, a picture of a craft absolutely identical to the black triangle chased by the Belgian Air Force [which was made a public event], photographed, and seen by countless witnesses throughout the 90's, is seen with the characteristic red light on the bottom, and the sleek, flat, triangular shape. This surprised me. I thought the triangles as such were a more recent evolution in the UFO lore. They must go back to at least 1970 - the story took place at least that early, maybe even in the mid 60's.

U don't happen to know the place where that sighting occurred? Did they show a real picture/video or was it a drawing or simulation?

Here are some sightings reported to MUFON-CES in Germany, which show identical triangles as in Belgium 1989/1990:

http://www.mufon-ces.org/img/type/type10.jpg
http://www.mufon-ces.org/img/type/type11.jpg
http://www.mufon-ces.org/img/type/type12.jpg

The one in Belgium apparently had periods of 40 G movement. I don't know what kind of technology is necessary for that? Anti-gravity?
 
  • #17
I will check for a date and place. What was shown was a detailed drawing of what the witness reported.
 
  • #18
Below is the same case. In the movie, it was mixed in with some earlier stuff, so the date was later than I thought - April 3rd, 1975. The movie was made in 1978. The picture shown in the movie was based on the descriptions given by the policemen involved. Also, this case is strangly similar to the recent Highland and Lebanon Illinois police chase.

April 3, 1975, 1:45 a.m. until sunrise. Southeast North Carolina (MUFON). Law enforcement officers in five counties pursued a V-shaped craft with two spotlights. First seen by Lumberton police, the object was traveling 200 to 300 feet above the ground, heading north along Interstate 95. At 1:50 a.m., two St. Pauls officers saw it take off from open ground 10 miles north of Lumberton. The object darted around, making right-angle turns and accelerating rapidly. It was brilliant and silent. During the night at least 100 sightings were reported, with at least nine police officers seeing eight craft similar to the V-shaped object reported earlier. One officer said it was 40 to 50 feet long and bathed in a blue tint. Residents of one town said the object's searchlights lit up the entire town. The police chief of White Lake reported that as he was driving, the object came down and lit up the whole area like daylight. He went on about 300 yards, then stopped and got out. The light from the object was so bright he had to look away. It was V-shaped, silent and lit up an area about 500 feet on either side of the road. The chief then got a powerful light of his own from his cruiser and shined it at the object. He blinked the light and the object blinked back. Then it suddenly went straight up in the air at about 200 miles an hour and disappeared.
http://www.cohenufo.org/BPratt%20Select%20TriCases.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #19
I should mention that in the picture shown, a bright red beam of light was seen coming from the bottom center of the delta or triangular [not V] shaped craft.
 
  • #20
One more thought. If these are military craft the government seems to be going way out of its way to perpetuate the UFO myth. These things all but beg the police to chase them. In both events mentioned, the UFOs hovered or traveled very low, and at times directly over the road in full view of the pursuing vehicles. In Illinois, one of the officers said that it was about thirty feet above the road and right in front of him.
 
  • #21
If those triangles were seen in the 70's, then the 'secret government plane' theory becomes even more unlikely.

The Belgian airforce report also says:

The Air Force staff has been able to produce several hypotheses about the origin of these UFOs. The presence or the testing of B-2 or F-117 A (stealth), RPV (Remotely Piloted Vehicles), ULM (Ultra Light Motorized) and AWACS in the Belgian air space during the facts can be excluded.
http://www.ufoevidence.org/documents/doc408.htm


And i read this bit:

g. Though speeds greater than the sound barrier have been measured several times, not any bang has been noticed. Here also, no explanation can be given.

What kind of technology is required for that? Certainly its not something that we know humanity owns today(or 15yrs ago), is it?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #22
Ivan Seeking said:
One more thought. If these are military craft the government seems to be going way out of its way to perpetuate the UFO myth. These things all but beg the police to chase them. In both events mentioned, the UFOs hovered or traveled very low, and at times directly over the road in full view of the pursuing vehicles. In Illinois, one of the officers said that it was about thirty feet above the road and right in front of him.
There does seem to be a deliberate effort to be noticed which makes you wonder, "Why are they trying so hard to be seen?"

I always have had the same reaction to reports of cattle mutilations, that they seem to me to be designed to draw attention to themselves by being grotesque and alarming.
 
  • #23
I really don't know what to think. There does seem to be good information - the police reports, and Belgian RADAR data and pilot reports - indicating that these BTs perform to levels beyond any known human technologies. But then again, if a concerted effort to hoax UFOs is underway by the military, then phony RADAR data could be transmitted to fool the tracking systems. This strategy is already used for the Stealth planes. We project false targets onto the systems in addition to having negligible RADAR signatures.
 
  • #24
The next few years will make for an interesting time in UFOlogy. With the advent of cellphone cameras, and their appearance in Joe Everyone's hands, we will begin to see either overwhelming evidence that can no longer be dismissed, or we will see the same attempts at hoaxery as we always have. Either way, it will provide good answers.

In this case, the absence of evidence will strongly suggest evidence of absence.
 
  • #25
I agree that the video age is changing the field a bit, but we already have a ton of compelling videos. It is only assumed that we don't. We just can't prove that seemingly good videos aren't hoaxed, and this won't change. Also, many video cameras, hence videos, are low quality, so they are usually not very useful.

There is an interesting skeptical response to a quality video: Any video that good must be a hoax! :biggrin:
 
  • #26
Here is another interesting case with a flying triangle on january 5th 2000.

It was witnessed by civilians as well as 5 policemen.

There is also a video which has a nice computer animation of the triangle and has some of the police officers testify to what they observed.

Video: http://www.darrylbarkerproductions.com/EOR%20Preview%20DSL.wmv

Sources:

http://www.darrylbarkerproductions.com/LOPINOT.htm
http://www.darrylbarkerproductions.com/default2.htm
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #27
The behavior exhibited by UFO's in witness accounts is truly baffling at times. What purpose do these bizarre behaviors serve? It's does not seem consistent with an intelligent pilot attempting to avoid or minimize detection. Could it be a deliberate effort to create confusion when they have a 'flat' or otherwise screw up? Could it be they are not intelligently piloted, perhaps merely rare natural phenomenon? While it's pretty obvious the great majority of sightings are misidentification of mundane objects, it's not easy to dismiss all the rest as hallucinations or hoaxes. I suppose some could be 'secret projects'.
 
  • #28
PIT2 said:
Here is another interesting case with a flying triangle on january 5th 2000.

It was witnessed by civilians as well as 5 policemen.

There is also a video which has a nice computer animation of the triangle and has some of the police officers testify to what they observed.

This is the Lebanon/Highland Illinois sighting that I mentioned. I have family in Highland. Not long after this event I went back there for a family reunion. I got with my cousins, one being about narrow minded as they come, and I couldn't help but tease him a little: "David, I hear you guys have been chasing UFOs all over the place around here. What in the world are you guys doing?" Of course I'm dying inside since they don't know about my interests. David got quite indignant, crossed his arms, assumed a very defensive posture and said, "Well by God they're seeing something!" This was so funny since these would normally be the last people in the world to talk about UFOs. It was really fun to put them on the spot. After a few decades of Californian jokes, they had it coming!
 
  • #29
DaveC426913 said:
The next few years will make for an interesting time in UFOlogy. With the advent of cellphone cameras, and their appearance in Joe Everyone's hands, we will begin to see either overwhelming evidence that can no longer be dismissed, or we will see the same attempts at hoaxery as we always have. Either way, it will provide good answers.

In this case, the absence of evidence will strongly suggest evidence of absence.

Now that were talking about cellphone camera's, i came across this picture today:

http://www.circularsite.com/lichten/lichtzuil-italie.bmp

story behind the pic:

On 7 June 2003 at 17.30 h., a 17 year old young man (who wishes to remain anonymous) saw a ball of light at Montegranaro (Italy). The ball of light was emanating a beam of light onto the ground. He quickly took his mobile phone and shot two photographs with the built-in digital camera. After the light had disappeared, he examined the ground but found nothing unusual. The next day however, there were three aligned, different sized circles. He showed his photographs (still on his mobile phone) to Adriano Forgione, editor of the 'Hera' magazine, who was very impressed by the whole story. He said: "It's impossible to make a fake on the phone, I can tell you. For me, it is an original witness".

http://www.circularsite.com/licht6-eng.htm

I don't think this is evidence that can't be dismissed though.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #30
Ivan Seeking said:
I agree that the video age is changing the field a bit, but we already have a ton of compelling videos. It is only assumed that we don't. We just can't prove that seemingly good videos aren't hoaxed, and this won't change. Also, many video cameras, hence videos, are low quality, so they are usually not very useful.

There is an interesting skeptical response to a quality video: Any video that good must be a hoax! :biggrin:

I was really talking more in terms of "# of hits" as oppsoed to quality of images. As just one example, we should get a rise in multiple recordings of the same siting, adding a virtually unprecedented layer of information.
 
  • #31
cyrusabdollahi said:
We are facing a situation in which we know that some triangles are ours (as the 1989 sighting by Chris Gibson demonstrates), some triangles are big, some are small, some do not appear to be "ours." If there is a single terrestrial explanation for this, it would have to be a shadow group, most likely among people deeply immersed in the world of black defense technology who developed their own agenda independent of any formally established government. -Richard M. Dolan


I can sum up his paper in two words, I will just abbreviate, B.S. Also, I can sum him up in two words, Nut Job. Yikes, I dident think there REALLY were people as crazy as him!

I like my triangles equilaterial, but that's just me. You might be an isosceles man yourself. :smile:

I really don't see what's crazy about it, yes he's speculating, but based on the good and reliable information that's out there, it really isn't that far out of a conclusion.
 
  • #32
DaveC426913 said:
I was really talking more in terms of "# of hits" as oppsoed to quality of images. As just one example, we should get a rise in multiple recordings of the same siting, adding a virtually unprecedented layer of information.

That's true. I guess my thinking is that you make a good point, but also I can't help but think of sightings such as the Mexico City events a few years ago, where many videos were taken in conjunction with eyewitness testimony, but with no conclusive results to be found. Still, I guess that if there really are ET UFOs, eventually one is bound to show up in the right place at the right time. I know of events from history in which hundreds or even thousands of witnesses reportedly saw the same craft(s), not to mention the first sighting of the Phoenix lights episode, so one good showing at a football game or a company picnic and we may have the solution to all of this.

As for faking a cell phone pictures, I really doubt this is so hard to fake. For example, how about taking a picture of a picture?

Bruce Maccabee argues the best photographic evidence would be a 3D shot. He said that there is one way that he knows that one could be faked, but he's not saying what that might be, and I think he said that he could tell if this was done.
 
  • #33
As for faking a cell phone pictures, I really doubt this is so hard to fake. For example, how about taking a picture of a picture?

Yes, but you're still thinking in terms of individuals, or a single group of cohorts. We should start seeing incidents where many people unrelated and phyiscally separated from each other take shots of the same events. (Not that this has not happened already...)

Or we won't. Which will begin answering some questions too.


As our techology advances, so will our ability to shed light on these mysteries. One might argue that technology will also advance in making more elaborate hoaxes, but somewhow I don't think that will happen. More elaborate hoaxes will eventually be too difficult to pull off with the low budgets that hoaxers have available. So far, other than some wacky publicity, no one stands to gain from UFO sightings, so there's no reason for more money (such as what might be offered by private corporations) to be put into them. The technology to uncover hoaxes will eventually outpace the technology to stage hoaxes.
 
  • #34
Sorry, the bit about the cell phones was out of context. I meant this in response to PIT2's single cell phone picture. It is argued that this would be impossible to fake.
 
  • #35
I read this newsstory today:

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,15290518%255E2862,00.html

In it, there are two lines that say:

Tim Webster, 23, of Upwey, admits he was looking forward to an alien abduction as he photographed the lights on his phone-camera.

Local pizza shop manager Ned Bulic also took phone pictures and said: "They were definitely alien UFOs. Nothing else could have moved like that."

I hope to see these pictures online soon.
In the story it is said that another person also took video footage.
 
  • #36
Hello all

Please excuse my spelling.

Ive seen this TR3b astra close up in January this year. I am an electrician in the UK and I was traveling throught the lake district at 1am. It was extreemly low about 40-50 foot of the ground. It was very big. It seemed bigger than a 747 a pure trangle shaped body not at all arodynamic and any other aircraft traveling at that speed would have dropped out of the sky. It was compleately silent with no jets thrusters or prppellas. Just the 3 corner lights. The whole concept has facinated me sinse the early 90's when I saw a documentry about what the UK and the US found when they invaded Nazi germany.

[... ...]
[edit by Ivan]

I don't think this TR3b has got anything to do with aliens i think its man made compleately. Could this be the Biefeld–Brown effect on a very large scale and is that just a Ion Drive.?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #37
I don't think this TR3b has got anything to do with aliens i think its man made compleately.

Could this be the Biefeld–Brown effect on a very large scale and is that just a Ion Drive.?

References to the alleged work by the Nazi's and Tesla were deleted pending reputable sources supporting the claims.

While you are free to share your sighting, we don't know if any such crafts exists [if you saw what you think you saw], and we certainly don't know the designation. If you are going to make specific claims going beyond what you saw, they have to be supported with credible links - mainstream news sources or official military/government sources.

The so-called Biefeld-Brown effect has been debunked already.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=288008

See also the list of banned topics.
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=414380
 
  • #38
My brother and a friend of ours experienced one of these triangle craft sightings about 7-8 years ago. Over the next few days stealth fighters were seen over the sky's. Coincidence? Possibly - with no additional information i can't summarize a reason - I wish there was more raw data on these craft. They have been an interest of mine. I just want the propulsion schematics - please forward them to me if you got them! (just kiddin!)
 
  • #39
I have an explanation for at least some of these "flying triangle" sightings, based on my own experience.

One clear night, nearly a year ago or so, I was out in the back patio with my then-present-girlfriend doing some observing with the telescope. After observing a good number of clusters, nebula, planets, and double stars, we started chatting about something or other. When suddenly, out of the corner of our eyes we saw something quickly moving in the sky and looked up. Unfortunately we only got a glance at it for a couple of seconds before it moved out of view behind a building. Here are the facts as to what I saw, as I knew them at the time:

o It was a triangular "pattern" of many lights.
o The pattern was quite large, perhaps around 50 to 100 feet (~ 15 - 30 m) across.
o It was low flying, maybe only 100-200 ft (~30-60 m) up.
o It was moving at a modestly fast pace -- not lightning speed, but much faster than something could move using only the wind.
o It was absolutely silent. 'Not a sound to be heard.

..."Did you see that?" My then-girlfriend asked.
..."Yeah... Yeah I did," I replied.
..."What the hell was it?"
..."Um. I don't know."
..."That was weird. What in the world could that have been?" She asked rhetorically.
..."Yeah... That was odd," I muttered.
..."Oh my god," she said slowly, "we just saw a UFO."
..."Hmmm. Perhaps," I said. I started scratching my head. "Maybe it was a group of fighter jets flying in formation and it just seemed closer than it actually was." Which didn't seem too unreasonable as a first guess. Military jets fly overhead all the time in the city I live in.
..."That was no group of planes," she exclaimed. "We would have heard a noise! Even if they were higher it would mean they would had to have been flying faster, and we still would have heard the exhaust."
..."Yes, that makes sense. You're right. One way or another we would have heard a noise. I suppose we can rule out airplanes." I scratched my head, "Maybe a group of gliders?" I felt silly with that statement as soon as it left my tongue. Granted, there is an international glider port in our city, but no gliders would be flying near my neighborhood. And in the middle of the night. And in formation too!
..."Do you even listen to yourself?, she said. "It was a UFO."
..."I suppose you're right."
..."I wonder if anybody else saw this alien ship besides us. Given the direction it was headed..."
..."Hold on," I interrupted. "I'm not saying it was an alien ship. I'm just saying that I don't know what it was."
..."Well what do you think it is, then?"
..."I don't know," I replied. "It was flying. It was some sort of an object or objects. And we haven't Identified it. So technically it's an unidentified flying object until we can identify it. So yeah. At the moment anyway, all we can say is that technically speaking, we saw UFO."

She seemed satisfied with that last comment, so we didn't bring it up again for awhile.

A few days to a week later, I was outside with the telescope again. But this time I was by myself setting it up for an astrophotography attempt. My then-girlfriend was inside watching TV. I had been outside in the dark for awhile, setting up the scope, getting the scope aligned, attaching the focal reducer, fumbling in the dark to find and connect the proper tube attachments, attaching the camera, attaching the cables, connecting the autoguider, the list goes on (astrophotgraphy, as rewarding as it can be, can also be a real tedious b**ch sometimes). My eyes were fairly well adjusted to the darkness, is my point.

Taking a break to smoke a cigarette, I looked up at the sky and low-and-behold the "UFO" came back. And this time I saw it approaching. It was definitely the same thing as before (or something just like it). And this time it flew directly overhead, so I got an even better view. After it passed, I had to sigh and chuckle, realizing what it was. Here are the facts of what I saw:

o It was a triangular "pattern" of many lights. (Just like before.)
o The pattern was quite large. (Same as before.)
o It was low flying. (Same as before.)
o It was moving at a modestly fast pace. (Same as before.)
o It was absolutely silent. (Same as before).
o Each of the 'lights', not only had a main body, but also wings that flapped occasionally.
o Each of the 'lights' also had a neck and head.
o Although most of the lights were not flapping their wings at any given moment in time, each 'light' would flap its wings occasionally.

Yes, this 'UFO' was nothing more than a flock of birds. That's right. A flock of birds.

My back patio that I use for astronomy is fairly well shielded from the surrounding city lights by nearby 2-story buildings. Just on the opposite side of my place, directly across the street, there is a strip mall with atrocious, horrible, pre-regulation, light polluting parking lot lights. My building shields the glare from this strip mall when I'm in the back patio. But anything higher than 2 stories is lit up like a matchbox. The bird flock was flying well over 2 stories up, and were illuminated quite brightly, as can be expected given the light polluting abomination nearby.

So I wonder how many other "flying triangle" sightings could be explained by a flock of birds. If a light source is nearby such that the source is not in direct view; being hid behind a small hill, building, foliage, or some other natural or man-made structure; and if there is little to no fog/haze in the air, one would not even notice that there is such a light source. There would be nothing to reflect the light to one's eyes. But if a flock of birds entered the region of the lights source, they would appear to be lit up quite brightly -- spectacularly if the hidden source was bright enough. Reading through this thread, it doesn't explain all the sightings, at least as they are portrayed. But I bet it could explain quite a few.

After I got my equipment set up and started the first round of exposures, I went back inside where my then-girlfriend was on the couch watching TV.

..."Oh, remember that 'UFO' we saw the other night?" I had to squint my eyes, as they had not yet adjusted to the brightness of the room -- which is saying a lot because the room was only illuminated by a dim table lamp and the TV itself. "I know what it was."
..."Oh, what!" She yelled. "What was it?"
..."I just saw it fly over again a few minutes ago."
..."No!" She exclaimed, "what was it?"
..."It was a flock of birds."
..."No it wasn't."
..."Yes," I said, "it was a flock of birds. I got a good look this time. I even saw their wings flapping. Just birds. 'Wings, head, neck, the whole bit. 'Flock o' birds."
..."It wasn't birds. It was a spaceship or something like that. I don't know if was an alien ship or secret government ship ... I don't know what it was but it was some sort of UFO."
..."No, it's not a UFO anymore," I explained, "I just identified it, so it's no longer an unidentified flying object. It was a flock of birds. I saw it clearly this time."
..."Well, I don't know what it was, but that's not what I saw."
..."We only got a glimpse of it the other night, maybe for only a couple of seconds. But tonight I good view of it. And it went directly overhead this time. I'm tellin' ya', I saw it in detail. 100%, it was a flock of birds."
..."No, my mind's made up. Alien UFO."

I can totally understand somebody seeing something that they can't identify or explain. But why some insist that it must be a spacecraft , is what makes me really think.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top