Flying Triangles

  • Thread starter Rodsw
  • Start date

DaveC426913

Gold Member
18,320
1,916
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.
 

Ryan_m_b

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
5,754
706
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.
 
6,171
1,275
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:

FlexGunship

Gold Member
367
8
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.
 
26
0
Same video, http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8285709939745631584 [Broken]
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:

FlexGunship

Gold Member
367
8
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:
6,171
1,275
Same video, http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8285709939745631584 [Broken]
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:

AlephZero

Science Advisor
Homework Helper
6,953
291
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.
 
26
0
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:
 
6,171
1,275
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.
 
26
0
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?
 
26
0
Last edited by a moderator:
26
0
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".
 
26
0
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.
 

Drakkith

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
2018 Award
20,628
4,359
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.
 
6,171
1,275
What was this video suppose to demonstrate?:uhh:
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.

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".

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.
 

Ivan Seeking

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,093
174
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:
 
26
0
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.
 

Ryan_m_b

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
5,754
706
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.
 
128
0
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.

As a matter of fact, I once proposed this technology in a physics class as a way avoid speeding tickets. :biggrin:
Love it!
 
6,171
1,275
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.
 

Ivan Seeking

Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,093
174
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:

AlephZero

Science Advisor
Homework Helper
6,953
291
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.
 

DaveC426913

Gold Member
18,320
1,916
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.
 

Related Threads for: Flying Triangles

  • Last Post
2
Replies
38
Views
13K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
34
Views
22K
  • Last Post
3
Replies
59
Views
5K
  • Last Post
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
2K

Hot Threads

Top