In an interview with Steven Greenstreet, Tim Phillips lends credence to the existence of black triangle UFOs that perform anonymously.
Source: https://youtu.be/LcwkyRLpz4Q?t=958
Source: https://youtu.be/LcwkyRLpz4Q?t=958
Tim Phillips lends credence to the existence of anomalous black triangle UFOs
- Thread starter beku-mant
- Start date
Edward Current
Senior Member.
Is there any video or other physical evidence of these anomalous perfomance characteristics?
Phillips claims there is video and other evidence, but doesn't specify whether it is just video of the craft or video of the craft performing anomalously. However, he seemed convinced they are performing anomalously.
I think that a lot of the "black triangle" cases are optical illusions. There is just no public video of such things, and if there were, then you would expect to see some.
I have little confidence that stories of videos will ever pan out into truly anomalous videos. Gimbal was probably called a "real flying saucer" by some.
I have little confidence that stories of videos will ever pan out into truly anomalous videos. Gimbal was probably called a "real flying saucer" by some.
Mendel
Senior Member.
Phillips says it's anomalous in the sense of, "we can't duplicate it today". He doesn't say it breaks physics.
He also said he thinks it comes from this world, it's not aliens. (Earlier he said that he has no evidence for aliens.)
I don't think it's correct to say he talked about UFOs.
He also said he thinks it comes from this world, it's not aliens. (Earlier he said that he has no evidence for aliens.)
I don't think it's correct to say he talked about UFOs.
jackfrostvc
Senior Member
The problem here is that there is a shit ton of triangle craft in the world now, from US fighters, bombers, drones to foreign equivelants.
Ann K
Senior Member.
...and anything of any shape that presents three lights at night. And any group of three lights that are not even connected to each other.
JMartJr
Senior Member.
@beku-mant I think you mean "anomalously" in your first post, where you have "anonymously"... if its still editable you might fix it. Sorry to mention it in a post instead of a message, but for some reason it says I can't message you?
Mendel
Senior Member.
"Send direct messages to you" is a privacy preference that can be set to "nobody". The default is "members only", and it may be limited to members who've had at least 3 posts approved?
owntheissue
Member
Likely cause of most sightings IMO.
This guy's "foreign adversary" hypothesis seems about as likely as the "NHI emit photons as part of their exotic propulsion" theory.
Step 1: You successfully build a low/slow stealthy penetrator capable of undertaking ISR operations within the USA.
Step 2 : Then you add ground visible navigation lights?
ETA @
Edward Current
Nothing public.
Can only think of 2 Delta sightings that are credible:
Chris Gibson 1989 North Sea Tri
Jeff Templin 2014 Wichita Dorito
in both cases- all supporting evidence suggests conventional classified aircraft of US origin.
Last edited:
The whole 'black triangles' thing has very blurry lines when it comes to defining what they are. Its similar in the blurry lines that people evoke when they talk about "drones" (quadcopters / unmanned alien spaceships) and "orbs" ( a light in the sky / new lifeform based on plasma energy).
Yes, the black triangle can refer to some recent and initially secret military aircraft ( eg HaveBlue, the F-117A, B-2, B-21 and the possible Aurora spyplane) , but it also refers to mythical antigravity aircraft that have been 'reverse engineered from crashed alien spaceships' such as the TR-3B. And it can also refer to the massive black triangle craft that some people say are flying through defended airspace with impunity, such as the one that is dubbed 'The Phoenix lights' (likely military flares). Some of these are obviously more likely to explain sightings than others - ie the ones that have been shown to actually exist. But many people continue to attribute sightings to the TR-3B and massive triangles.
When the blurry lines cross over into the 'unknown prosaic' or 'foreign adversary' it gives as air of rationality to what could be a considered fringe topic. No one is saying that military triangular craft don't exist - the evidence shows that that do, and it is possible that there are others that we do not know about. But we have yet to see any good evidence that the TR-3B exists, or that 'massive hovering triangles' exist. I think that before trying to work out what the black triangles are we should at least gather some evidence (other than witness testimony) that confirms they are an actual thing.
Mendel
Senior Member.
I like that Greenstreet actually asked Phillips about the types of evidence AARO has for these.
Edward Current
Senior Member.
The mention of the black triangles at the end of the interview provided a perfectly constructed "motte" for UFO enthusiasts to retreat to, in their motte-and-bailey approach employed by all kinds of evidence-challenged believers.
Phillips believes that these craft are adversary technology — meaning, not aliens, not NHI, not paradigm-changing or even particularly extraordinary (military technology having advanced throughout history). If you point that out, you get the classic "nobody ever said aliens" baloney, accompanied by "why aren't you more concerned about the security of our military installations" pearl-clutching.
Phillips believes that these craft are adversary technology — meaning, not aliens, not NHI, not paradigm-changing or even particularly extraordinary (military technology having advanced throughout history). If you point that out, you get the classic "nobody ever said aliens" baloney, accompanied by "why aren't you more concerned about the security of our military installations" pearl-clutching.
Last edited:
NorCal Dave
Senior Member.
This is the part I have a problem with. It fuels the "Chinese/Russian/Iranian" threat that was a part of the UAPDF conference. I'm not trying to be overly patriotic and "Amurica's best" or that people in these various countries are dumb, but what adversaries? Yes the Ukrainians have shown that pluck and creativity can work against a superior opponent, but they are up-cycling existing tech and using it in unique and unpredictable ways. But that's not what the "black triangles" are about, they represent some sort of new, never before seen capabilities.External Quote:
If so, who can create this?
Iran can barely keep their vintage former US, and very analog F4s and F14s flying. Yes they can produce drones for Russia, but those are takes on standard drone technology. Their drone aircraft carrier is a converted freighter that has never left the Persian gulf area, despite what a NJ congressman has said. They've had numerous tit-for-tats with Israel over the last few years and have never displayed any kind of advanced aircraft. I guess the notion is they hold it back and only use it in US airspace, where they somehow have the needed logistics, just for harassment purposes. Meanwhile, their equally hated, and very capable enemy nearly next door is treated to a barrage of Shahed drones that were all shot down. Some are triangularish though:
North Korea just launched their most advanced cruiser and it sank upon launching. Yes, they have some missiles with Iranian, and likely now Russian, technology. But again, not physics defying tech. They did show off some suicide drones that likely included Russian technology, but they are still just takes on conventional UAM designs dating back to the '80s:
Again the notion is, if they have something super secret and advanced, they're keeping it hidden and only using in places like New Jersy.
Russia. The Russian Air Force is in tatters. Their conventional gen 4 fighters are increasingly only used over Russia, out of reach of Ukrainian air defenses. Their most advanced aircraft, the Su-57 is used sparingly with a few of the probable 76 total aircraft seeing action near Ukraine.
Production was slowed due to sanctions limiting the Russians access to the western technology needed. One would think that technology would also be needed to produce super secret, super advanced black triangle aircraft that they don't use in Ukraine to their advantage, but use to harass the US. Their drones increasingly come from Iran, see above. Once again, we have the notion that Putin holds back his most advanced weapons to buzz New Jersey, while marching his male population into the Ukranian meat grinder.
That really leaves only China. Yes, they have the economy and manufacturing capacity. They still seem to copy a lot. I don't know how their military industrial complex works, but I don't think it has the level of competition that exists in the west. Boeing competes with Lockheed and Northrup, while Dassault competes with Airbus and Saab.
Again, not trying to be ethnocentric, just looking at the advancements in aerospace over the last 50-60 years that would create the expertise, technologies and antecedents needed to engineer a super advanced, possibly physics defining, aircraft, which adversarial threat has that? Now if they are reverse engineering UFOs, that's a different argument.
Kyle Ferriter
Senior Member.
jarlrmai
Senior Member.
Greenstreet specifically asked Philips about that his answers was vague and left open doors.
Tim Phillips just seemed really giddy about top secret tech to me, sure none of us know what secret programmes there are, but it seems unlikely any of it even US (probably the most advanced military on the planet) is, once seen in context, paradigm level shifting.
Even current/low tech seen in a weird context could look amazing.
A more sort of grounded sort of explanation might have been appreciated. Like I saw some things that looked amazing but when I talked to the people they said yeah it can do that whilst tethered to a power source, or it only operates for 4 minutes and then runs out of fuel etc Phillips made it seems like a Stargate SG-1 episode back there.
I understand why Greenstreet needed an hour long voice chat thing to collect his thoughts, this is almost as out there as aliens tbh.
External Quote:
Tim Phillips just seemed really giddy about top secret tech to me, sure none of us know what secret programmes there are, but it seems unlikely any of it even US (probably the most advanced military on the planet) is, once seen in context, paradigm level shifting.
Even current/low tech seen in a weird context could look amazing.
A more sort of grounded sort of explanation might have been appreciated. Like I saw some things that looked amazing but when I talked to the people they said yeah it can do that whilst tethered to a power source, or it only operates for 4 minutes and then runs out of fuel etc Phillips made it seems like a Stargate SG-1 episode back there.
I understand why Greenstreet needed an hour long voice chat thing to collect his thoughts, this is almost as out there as aliens tbh.
Mendel
Senior Member.
Edward Current
Senior Member.
The (what matches a black triangle UFO pattern) thing I saw appeared to be hovering with no lights on, then when the 3 lights turned on (they looked more like glowing balls of plasma than shining lights) it zipped off suddenly. If what I saw was an actual vehicle, it would appear that the lights were a part of the propulsion system. Alternatively, they could have been 3 separate sources moving in coordination, possibly some kind of plasma. If it weren't for the body of corroborating reports, many of which also involve claims of seeing a solid vehicle, I would strongly favor the hypothesis that it is some kind of laser plasma decoy system, although that's also hard to reconcile. I don't know what hypothesis to favor now.
If it was a real craft, then definitely not conventional. Like Phillips says, they appear to demonstrate performance that we could not replicate with known technology today. This is the primary support for an ET hypothesis. If they are real vehicles, then either we have a decades long concealment of hyper advanced propulsion technology, maybe new physics (under the assumption these are real physical craft), or they have a non-human origin.
This is clearly not true. He said, "There are some spooky things, and places they shouldn't be, with performance characteristics that we couldn't duplicate today."
If confirmed, that would be absolutely paradigm changing. Especially, when we are talking about something that has been going on for decades. Depending on the performance, this can mean new physics, a new understanding of gravity, space and time. It would change paradigms about space travel, defense, fundamental physics, and even cosmology.
Eburacum
Senior Member.
I hope Kosloski has his head screwed on a bit tighter than Phillips, if Phillips thinks that these black triangle reports are credible. The best one is the Jeff Templin sighting, and the photo seems to show a relatively conventional, light-coloured aircraft.
Quite different to the black triangles reported by witnesses who always forget to use their smartphones..
Quite different to the black triangles reported by witnesses who always forget to use their smartphones..
Agreed. The performance characteristics that make (some) black triangle UFO cases interesting, is sudden acceleration on the order of 0 to thousands of miles per hour in less than a second, sudden right angle turns mid-flight at high speed, and little or no sound.
Source: https://youtu.be/GBUULtF0TGw?t=720
Edward Current
Senior Member.
The imagination is a wonderful thing.
Eburacum
Senior Member.
Yet none of this has ever been filmed.
Or maybe it has been filmed. It would be nice if we had access, or at least a clear description of what video evidence Phillips looked at, and what evidence all together convinced him.
Ann K
Senior Member.
As has been pointed out before, any object, whether domestic or other-worldly, still has to deal with the known characteristics of our atmosphere, so at the very least one would be expected to exhibit a large heat signature if those descriptions are even approximately true.
You would need to know a great deal about "known technology", even the secret stuff to which most of us have no access, to make such a statement authoritatively. "I don't know" is a long, long way from "nobody knows".
Edward Current
Senior Member.
In fairness, that only applies to material objects, things with mass that occupy a volume of space at a distance — not to objects constructed wholly in the mind's eye and exclusive to the observer. In which case, sonic booms and the van der Waals force and so on need not apply.
But this explanation is pretty much a no-go for multiple observer cases, or cases where sensor systems corroborate eye witness accounts. And these make up the most compelling and interesting cases.
MonkeeSage
Senior Member.
I'm not sure that is true. I think there were multiple observers in the 29 Palms case who thought flares were a triangular craft. That case didn't involve any perceived physics-defying maneuvers (well hovering I guess?), but it did involve the perception of a solid triangular object/craft when there actually was none.
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/twentynine-palms-camp-wilson-triangle-uap-flares.12967/
I was responding to "objects constructed wholly in the mind's eye", which I interpreted as something purely imagined, but I guess it could include seeing something real, but constructing something not real in your mind based on it (like an optical illusion).
NorCal Dave
Senior Member.
I'll respectfully disagree a bit here. His statement, part of which you quoted, is this:
I'm not saying it's weasel wording, but "performance characteristics that we couldn't duplicate today" is a wide open statement and typical in this field.It suggests "new physics" but could just be referring to upgraded or modified existing technology.External Quote:
For example, prior to the late '80s, there were conventional fixed wing aircraft or there were rotor wing helicopter aircraft. Through out the '80 & '90s Bell and Boeing developed the V22, a new class of tilt rotor aircraft. It lands and takes off like a helicopter and flies like fixed wing plane. In the mid '80s, this would have been "performance characteristics" that could not have "been duplicated" prior to the V22's development.
As for his claim about "disruptive technology, or emerging technology," again, this doesn't have to mean new physics and again is a typical in these discussions. Disruptive technology is usually a marketing term, meaning this is the next Apple, invest now. Often the term "breakthrough technology" gets thrown around in UFO circles to mean something completely new and different. Technology doesn't work that way, it builds in layers upon previous technologies. For every new technology, there is a host of antecedents that proceeded it.
An 5th gen fighter like the F35 traces back, step by step to the Wright Brothers. We didn't suddenly go from balloons to 747s, there were Ford TriMotors and DC3s and 707s and all the rest. Same with one's cell phone. First there was the telegraph, then voice over wire, then voice over radio, then portable phones, then advancements in micro-processors were combined with portable phones to create smart phones and so on.
As for decades long programs that re-make physics or change our understanding of gravity, I think that's backwards. As a professor once told me, "technology is the application of man's knowledge". The knowledge comes first, then the technology based on it. A working aircraft relied on the understanding of the Bernoulli effect, dating back to the 18th century.
While there are certainly many smart physicists and others working on classified programs, there are far more working in unclassified academia and industry. The notion is that a few guys in secret have upended physics or gravity just to make some aircraft, inferring they have discovered something radically new and different from what they learned in school. At the same time, the huge number of publicly working scientists, likely including some of the ones that taught the secret guys, have managed to NOT make the same discoveries. This makes no sense.
One doesn't upend physics with an aircraft. One upends physics, then designs an aircraft to take advantage of that new paradigm. Knowledge is first, then technology follows. If that's the case, and I argue it is, then where is all this new physics? Where is the new understanding of gravity? If a few physicists working in secret can figure it out, surely some physicists at some collage somewhere would have as well. There is just too much research going on. IF there ever is an upending of physics or gravity, it'll play out in journals for years before being settled on.
Honestly, this would apply to alien technology as well. The idea that some guy can reverse engineer a UFO that uses unknown physics is untenable. The technology flows from knowledge, so someone would have to learn the new physics first. And this all assumes the idea that physics is different in other parts of the universe, which all of our current understands and experiments show it's not.
Edward Current
Senior Member.
I appreciate that.
Here's a thought experiment (without claiming it has any relation to Phillips' black triangles). You are at someone's house one evening, maybe an unfamiliar home, and you go to a door that has a large window in it. You call a friend over — "There's a giant UFO hovering over the woods! Do you see it?" And your friend says yes, WTF? You open the door to get a better look, but just then, the triangular craft shoots away without making a sound. It's gone, and you and your friend's minds are blown as you venture outside, staring at the now-empty sky. You're left with the impression that the UFO saw you and silently sped off, with instant acceleration to hypersonic speeds!
What you and your friend didn't realize is that three light fixtures from inside the house were reflecting off the glass in the door. But now you're both experiencers for life.
On a completely different front, I still think about the experiencer I talked to who, alongside a friend, witnessed a giant triangular craft (without lights) moving and then hovering over downtown Los Angeles. He was thoroughly convinced of what they saw, but the location where it happened removes any credibility from the idea that it was a material object in the sky, which anyone could see if they looked up.
John J.
Senior Member.
Sorry to be picky, b-m, but you know that neon lights use a glowing plasma, right?
Yeah, but I guess I couldn't find better words to describe it at the moment. Maybe glowing is a better description. Honestly, this was 15+ years ago. The lights were clearly defined circles of glowing light. It wasn't super bright, like it didn't light up the trees and ground. It looked a lot like this recreation in both scale and how it moved. Except not with such an exaggerated trail of light, the light looked like it became ovalized as it accelerated.
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ac4NaaSACpk
NorCal Dave
Senior Member.
Sometimes that's the problem. What we saw and what we currently remember can be different things. I spent a good hour out in my shop this afternoon looking for some wire vices I ordered on Amazon. Nowhere to be found. I checked other places before my wife finally said. "did we actually order them?". I thought for a moment and remembered the little box they came in, opening it and seeing what I had ordered and then putting it somewhere. Very vivid.
Despite my very vivid memory, a review of our orders on Amazon confirmed my wife's suspicions. These were very specific items that I had gotten before from another supplier years ago, so I had to spend time just figuring out what to search for on Amazon. That seems to have been confabulated with the previous time I got the items. I never actually added them to my cart and ordered them.
Not suggesting your a dumb-ass like me that confabulated something from 5 years ago with an order I never completed a few weeks ago, but memory can be a confusing thing. We can often meld the current with our memories to arrive at completely different places. I also have a vivid memory of meeting a now good friend camping out in the desert. He was in a blue Toyota Tacaoma. Several years later, he confirmed he had never owned such a vehicle and when we met he was in a white RAM. Maybe it's just me
.I do have a text report that I wrote right after it happened. Plus when you see something like this, you think it through over and over for years. I think gradually you probably lose accuracy in your recall. But it's mainly the fine details like the type of light that I didn't describe in much depth in the report that I have to rely on memory and probably don't recall it clearly. When I reviewed what I wrote many years later, the main thing that was off from my memory is the time of night.Sometimes that's the problem. What we saw and what we currently remember can be different things. I spent a good hour out in my shop this afternoon looking for some wire vices I ordered on Amazon. Nowhere to be found. I checked other places before my wife finally said. "did we actually order them?". I thought for a moment and remembered the little box they came in, opening it and seeing what I had ordered and then putting it somewhere. Very vivid.
Despite my very vivid memory, a review of our orders on Amazon confirmed my wife's suspicions. These were very specific items that I had gotten before from another supplier years ago, so I had to spend time just figuring out what to search for on Amazon. That seems to have been confabulated with the previous time I got the items. I never actually added them to my cart and ordered them.
Not suggesting your a dumb-ass like me that confabulated something from 5 years ago with an order I never completed a few weeks ago, but memory can be a confusing thing. We can often meld the current with our memories to arrive at completely different places. I also have a vivid memory of meeting a now good friend camping out in the desert. He was in a blue Toyota Tacaoma. Several years later, he confirmed he had never owned such a vehicle and when we met he was in a white RAM. Maybe it's just me
Mendel
Senior Member.
So, entirely unlike plasma.
If you've ever seen lightning, you've seen atmospheric plasma. It's very bright.
Sorry to be picky, John, but you know that neon does not feature prominently in the composition of air, right?
Last edited:
Fin
Senior Member
I made that animation. I still speak to the witness often. Obviously not a reflection on a window, no history of mental illness/delusion/random hallucinations. Girlfriend was with him at the time and described the same experience afterwards. About as "unambiguous" as you could hope for; Spielberg would be jealous.
It's a real head-scratcher - the type of close-encounter report that fuels the foundation of the Ufology. He's abundantly aware of & appreciates why the reasonable, skeptical, analytical mind concludes it just cannot have happened as described. Its unprovable, and yet he's 100% convinced it happened exactly as described.
@beku-mant regarding your own sighting, have you ever done any drawings to better illustrate what you mean when you describe it? My mind jumps to videos many of us will have seen of spotlights hitting low cloud cover. Are you familiar with those sorts of examples of common ufo misidentifications? Spotlights can "zip off suddenly" in rigid formation, creating the illusion of a solid object in between. How good was the lighting when you initially saw it hovering with no lights?
A while back I turned down a request to animate a sighting for a gentleman who described, as a child, seeing a ring of lights, with no visible body, slowly rotating around. I think he was quite possibly seeing event lights hitting low clouds [photo example below]. I don't know for sure if that's what it was, but I'm not about to spend a week animating it only to have Mick ask "could it have been spotlights", only for me to say "Well damn. You could be right!"
I made a low quality recreation attempt.
Yeah, definitely not that. It was night in a rural area with no light pollution. I was out looking around because a strange sounding craft was flying around over my house (low humming and columns of air whipping around). After whatever was making that sound left (I eventually spotted normal looking aircraft lights going over the hills as the sound faded). Then I was looking up, and was noticing a dark patch in the sky above me, and then suddenly the 3 lights illuminated (revealing what your video depicts) and it zipped off. It happened pretty fast, so I can't confidently say I saw anything besides the 3 lights.
I love your videos, but don't have interest in being public about my sighting. I end up explaining what I saw online sometimes, but I don't even tell most people I know, and am too worried about potential stigma and career damage to be any more public than that.
The sound in my video is not accurate, nor the time frame, but basically, 3 balls of light appeared from a dark patch in sky right above me and zipped off.
Similar threads
