JMartJr
Senior Member.
I am unaware of any such cases for black triangles. You seem to have more info than I do about them as a specific class of objects... could you share some cases ?
Tim Phillips lends credence to the existence of anomalous black triangle UFOs
- Thread starter beku-mant
- Start date
FatPhil
Senior Member.
Yeah, but neon lights can contain argon instead of neon, and that's the third largest component of air. You are conflating what-it's-called with what-it-is.
John J.
Senior Member.
@Mendel, I don't understand.
The point I was trying to make- perhaps poorly- was that neon lights are plasma-dependent lights:
When people describe an unexplained light in the sky, an orb etc. as looking like a plasma, it's difficult to know what they mean.
I'm fairly sure they don't mean it looked like a neon light, or like a plasma screen, or like lightning, or like a star.
Perhaps they mean it looks a bit like the Sun, but if so saying "it looked a bit like the Sun" might be clearer.
A glowing plasma need not be spherical, amorphous, a specific colour or particularly bright.
If we don't know the mechanism behind a light source, why describe it as looking like a plasma?
What are the visual characteristics of a plasma light source?
Last edited:
JMartJr
Senior Member.
For the same reason every distant light is now an "orb" -- it sounds UFOier.
jarlrmai
Senior Member.
Former deputy director of AARO
Eburacum
Senior Member.
Multiple observer cases can all be deceived by the same stimulus, as happened in the 29 Palms case.
I'm more interested in cases where the sensor systems corroborate eyewitness accounts. One possible example of this is the Belgian Flap; but in this case the radar returns don't seem to resemble the eyewitness accounts at all, and the photographs were faked. Do you have any others?
Mendel
Senior Member.
That depends on the type of gas(es) being excited, the shape of the containment (if any), and the shape of the electrical discharge doing the exciting.
I think in air it's always bright white because the oxygen is not inert?
People make unwarranted inferences to the nature of what they see because sense-making is what our brain does.
It takes training to just see.
Some UFOlogists have taken to calling white splotches "plasma" or even "intelligent plasma", and most people don't have the education to see through the nonsense (and some do, but still don't).
Last edited:
Mendel
Senior Member.
I just googled "glowing ball of plasma", and all I got was party lamps (see above), a hoax, and the sun.
@beku-mant, was there something about the lights that made you think of them as plasma, instead of just round (?) lights?
@beku-mant, was there something about the lights that made you think of them as plasma, instead of just round (?) lights?
Last edited:
NorCal Dave
Senior Member.
IDK. I could see someone describing this video I took as a "glowing ball of plasma". The colors are changing, it's pulsing, kinda fiery looking and reminds me of the arc when I'm welding, if it was huge and in the sky:
Again, I am going off memory, but imagine the plasma in this video except in a circle and more white/blue in color rather than purplish.
Source: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/trGsFRV8HLM
Last edited:
Giddierone
Senior Member.
Then there's your own sighting right? And others, like that of Liz Kershaw years earlier.
Also I wonder what you think about the similarity in description of the "perfectly round" lights in that animation and this description.
Source: https://youtu.be/b6igqXbpxJs?si=5NOmiDj9g2YeNTZs&t=312
[from 5:12]
Last edited:
Maybe I was too concrete and presumptuous in how I described what people claim to see.
In terms of analysis of sensor measurements, all we have that I know comes from the Belgian air force and Prof. Emile Schweicher. Who claimed physics defying acceleration and speeds up to around 1,139 mph, corroborated by 4 different radar systems, and many eye witnesses.
But, black triangle witnesses often report something that hovers silently, or moves very slow, then suddenly accelerates so fast that it is completely out of sight in a very short time frame. I guess people refer to this as sudden departure. Usually if you see an aircraft, it will take some time to move across the sky and out of view.
Of course, triangle is a pretty generic descriptor, and you will find many different styles of triangle UFOs described by witnesses. It's clear they are not all the same thing. But the two main categories that are interesting are those with apparent anomalous performance, and/or those which are reported to be absurdly large.
Here is an example of a black triangle sudden departure claim.
"And when it left, it tilted up about 45 degrees, and it left, it was like a flash, the speed of light if we can say".
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ATvsw2fE5c
In my previous comment, I was just meaning to say this is the kind of anomalous performance witnesses are describing. So if this is the kind of anomalous performance actually corroborated by AAROs evidence, that would be very significant.
Giddierone
Senior Member.
Seen this article from 1960 floating around also. For historical context.
Eburacum
Senior Member.
Yet a completely different professor, Prof Auguste Meessen, has come to the conclusion that the visual sightings and the radar detections do not corroborate each other, and the visual sightings were caused by stars, planets and by the planes sent up by the Belgian Airforce to look for these phenomena.
Here's Tim Printy's summary of the event;
https://www.astronomyufo.com/UFO/Belg.htm
External Quote:
The pilots didn't see these objects, their radar was probably picking up thermal distortions from factory smokestacks, among other things.External Quote:
Eburacum
Senior Member.
Of course not.
But no air force on Earth has triangular black aircraft that can over in place for minutes (or hours in the case of the report in post #57) then shoot off instantaneously; this sort of performance strongly suggests an observation error of some kind. If there really were black triangles hovering around up there we'd have better evidence of them by now, because someone would have had the opportunity to film them. Instead, all we have is fakes.
Last edited:
But this article highly mischaracterizes what witnesses reported, and by all appearances, the article seems like a forced and poor attempt to come up with a plausible sounding simple explanation rather than a complete unbiased analysis/presentation.
Maybe cells of warm air can explain some of the radar anomalies, I don't know, but then you have the witness reports themselves to go with it, in addition to all of the highly similar reports throughout Europe and the US around the same time.
Last edited:
literally no one is pretending that there wasn't (and aren't) secret black triangle aircraft programs. But that's not what many people are claiming to have seen. They're claiming to have seen massive black triangle craft that defy explanation as prosaic (although advanced) aircraft, with the suggestion that the technology, if not the entire craft, is extraterrestrial in origin.
And they claim this without any good evidence to support their claims. Maybe I haven't seen the evidence?
Last edited:
Eburacum
Senior Member.
Which describe stationary, hovering objects, whereas the pilots were chasing fast and elusive returns that sometimes went underground (a physical impossibility, unless anomalous radar propagation is involved). Anomalous propagation is not the same thing as anomalous objects, of course.
Eburacum
Senior Member.
With no photographic evidence except admitted fakes.
Besides, the article you linked also seems to misrepresent Auguste Meessen's analysis and conclusion. Here is a portion of his paper:
https://www.meessen.net/AMeessen/Etude_des_mystérieux_enregistrements_des_F16.pdf
Last edited:
Eburacum
Senior Member.
Yes; Meesen is a UFO believer.
To me this makes his analysis more convincing. He was unable to find any evidence that the 'UFOs' were detected by radar, despite analysing the same data Schweicher analysed.
I note that occasionally a UFO believer investigates a sighting, and discovers that the evidence points in a different direction. For instance Bruce Maccabee investigated the Phoenix Lights, and demonstrated that the filmed clips were flares. It is somewhat more convincing when a believer finds the holes in the narrative.
To me this makes his analysis more convincing. He was unable to find any evidence that the 'UFOs' were detected by radar, despite analysing the same data Schweicher analysed.
This strongly suggests that the UFOs were not detectable by radar, so the pilot's testimony can be ignored. They did not see anything.
I note that occasionally a UFO believer investigates a sighting, and discovers that the evidence points in a different direction. For instance Bruce Maccabee investigated the Phoenix Lights, and demonstrated that the filmed clips were flares. It is somewhat more convincing when a believer finds the holes in the narrative.
He claims that there were two radar traces that are unexplained and coincident with the f-16's intervention. I don't know. But, should we consider Meesen's analysis as ground truth? I am suspicious he might be engaging in confirmation bias, considering he also seems so convinced his own theoretical propulsion idea is the basis for these sightings. It sounds like he is trying to fit this event into his own model/research which he claims suggests they are hard to detect by radar. I would personally take Meesen's work with a grain of salt, and lean more towards Emile's analysis being more credible.
Last edited:
Fin
Senior Member.
I had 3 sightings, each time of 2 low-flying black triangular aircraft in ridiculously close formation. Always moving slow and making no apparent noise. I'll eventually get around to finishing a detailed animation telling my story. It subsequently emerged that several other locals also saw UFOs on the same night as me in September 2008, including one gentleman who described exactly what I saw. I have the newspaper clippings, which I'll include with the animation.
I find Tim Ley (and his family's) description really interesting (along with the description of the round lights) but I'm also well aware of the problems with the Phoenix Lights case, including the proven fact that flares were absolutely misidentified by many people. Last year, for practise and for fun I made an "artists impression" animation of what a mile-wide boomerang craft might look like when flying low over a highway outside Phoenix, mainly to give a good sense of scale to those who are finding it hard to visualize.
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3uOYLz1YKjo
Eburacum
Senior Member.
The Metabunk thread on the Phoenix lights is here.
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/phoenix-lights.11938/
It seems fairly obvious that the 20:00 hours event was planes flying in formation, and the 22:00 event was flares, probably dropped by the same planes. Mitch Stanley actually saw the planes through a telescope.
https://www.metabunk.org/threads/phoenix-lights.11938/
It seems fairly obvious that the 20:00 hours event was planes flying in formation, and the 22:00 event was flares, probably dropped by the same planes. Mitch Stanley actually saw the planes through a telescope.
NorCal Dave
Senior Member.
Agreed. He's explaining a sighting as confirmation for his own propulsion theory. Then there is this line:
He says mirages can be detected, but not by military radar. Is that true? Radar is radar. Obviously some are more advanced and designed to do slightly different things, but in this case, both the civilian and military radars are for detecting aircraft. Maybe it's true, but it has that ring of something being "military grade" and therefore much better. It depends. Many military aircraft, including the F22, F35 and others have horrible mission capable rates. At any giving time, less than 50% of the F22 are mission ready. Imagine a commercial airliner that was only able to fly 50% of the time.External Quote:
Something military isn't necessarily better.
He twice made the point that the UFOs were hard to detect by radar. Instead of concluding maybe there was nothing to detect, he tries to explain the lack of detection, given that he already assumes the UFOs are there:
This unfortunately is classic conspiratorial thinking. The absence of evidence for a claim, is proof of the claim. The real UFOs which were shaped to favor "specular reflections" were difficult to detect on radar, therefore they were UFOs that were shaped to favor "specular reflections". He never considers, there were no UFOs to detect.External Quote:
Last edited:
Kyle Ferriter
Senior Member.
For many cases I see people refer to radar tracks existing, but lack specifics about what the radar tracks showed. Often it's a way to inject a high tech expensive sensor system into the story to lend it credibility, regardless of what role the radar data played, or can play now, in confirming the specific claims of anomalous events taking place.
And conversely in cases like the December 2024 drone hysteria, when radar does not confirm any of the claims being made, the "anomalous" story is updated to include the claim that the objects are so advanced that they evade detection, (in some peoples' view) lending even more credibility to the claim that the events in question were anomalous.
Or that his theory about what caused the radar detection is wrong. What we have is many observers describe something, then the air force appears to have picked up something anomalous on 4 different radar systems. A professor of physics specializing in electronic warfare analyzed the radar evidence and concluded he doesn't think it could have been an error in the radar.
Then later someone analyzes the radar, appearing to mean to fit the evidence into their existing theory that black triangles are plasma based aircraft that cannot be detected easily, and comes up with a theory that the most of the radar measurements could have been anomalous atmospheric conditions, combined with a Doppler phenomenon. Why should we be selectively dismissive, especially on the basis of authority alone? It's likely his theory on the causes of the radar measurements is wrong too, and then we are left with his theory against the claims from the Belgian air force and institute for electronic warfare.
It's like suppose AARO, lets say also Mick West, generally highly competent and qualified people, investigate some evidence and form a conclusion that an object accelerated anomalously, then a physicist analyzes the same evidence and claims its not actually accelerating anomalously but also its actually an inter-dimensional time traveler.
Last edited:
Ann K
Senior Member.
An aircraft at night that turns off the lights can "simply disappear".External Quote:
MonkeeSage
Senior Member.
In the one of the few cases I know of where radar data was available (the 2008 Stephenville, TX sightings) the data is so noisy that one can essentially just "find" a UFO anywhere in the noise and correlate it with the sightings.
Here's the thread on that case: https://www.metabunk.org/threads/stephenville-texas-ufo-2008.13446
Kyle Ferriter
Senior Member.
I live relatively close to the Boston airport, which frequently flies in planes over the Massachusetts Bay / ocean, and other predictable routes, so I have videos of distant (10+ miles) planes turning on their landing lights as they come in to land. Going from invisible to the camera to being highly visible with the landing/forward bright lights on. I need to gather some more videos of them as they turn their landing lights off. One issue is that landing patterns are easier to plan a filming location for, while flight patterns several minutes after takeoff can be all over the place and harder to plan a filming location near. Harder to predict where there will be planes turning their forward lights off than where they will be turning them on.
jackfrostvc
Senior Member.
In regards to the plasma balls
Remember this :
US NAVY creates Plasma UFOs
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidh...vy-laser-creates-plasma-ufos/?sh=4300b1501074
Or this which goes back to at least 2006. 3D Plasma shapes created in the air that can be seen in daylight by Burton
www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNoOiXkXmYQ
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn8778-3d-plasma-shapes-created-in-thin-air/
Remember this :
US NAVY creates Plasma UFOs
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidh...vy-laser-creates-plasma-ufos/?sh=4300b1501074
Or this which goes back to at least 2006. 3D Plasma shapes created in the air that can be seen in daylight by Burton
www.youtube.com/watch?v=GNoOiXkXmYQ
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn8778-3d-plasma-shapes-created-in-thin-air/
NorCal Dave
Senior Member.
It depends on the evidence. If Mick and/or others concluded something was moving at high speed and they show their work supporting that, we have a basis to work from. I will confess in my case, I have to rely on other members to check the calculations as me and math are not friends, but there are plenty of people here that can.
If Mr. Sarfatti challenges the high speed conclusion and shows his work, then that can be debated. Something similar has already happened with the UAPx group and one of the Navy videos. UAPx has calculated that the object is moving at some multiple of Mach almost instantly. Mick has contended that it's something like parallax. The object didn't move that fast, the movable camera that was following it lost lock and quickly returned to its center position making it appear the object zoomed off screen. We can check these claims against each other.
We have no idea what an inter-dimensional time traveler would look like. What evidence is Sarfatti offering for this claim? Likely none. Does that mean his claim the object moving slow is wrong? Not necessarily, it depends on the evidence for that claim. Just my experience here, but if someone showed Mick his calculations were wrong and was correct, I think he'd go along with that. Everything that happens here is in the open for all to see.
I don't want to get all off topic, but this notion of plasma engine powered black triangles is a trope in UFOs. I would argue this is because "plasma engines" sounds exotic and powerful and like something that could accelerate a craft instantaneously. The current technology and research on plasma engines, a sub-set of electric propulsion, appears to be just the opposite. Chemical rocket engines produce nearly instant thrust that reaches a maximum and then gives out, while plasma engines produce slow steady thrust that builds speed exponentially over time:
https://dsiac.dtic.mil/articles/space-travel-aided-by-plasma-thrusters-past-present-and-future/External Quote:
Plasma engines create faster acceleration than chemical engines, and by extension jet turbine engines, but only after a period of time. And in open space, outside or planetary atmospheres and the effects of gravity closer to a planet. They are ill-suited to atmospheric sub-orbital operations including black triangle craft.
purpleivan
Senior Member.
One passing behind cloud does that too.
JMartJr
Senior Member.
evening!, if you follow UFO cases enough younstarto notice how often "radar data" when specific are given reads like "when the UFO was sighted nearby radar station detected an anomalous blip off in another direction, about 20 minutes earlier." A statement of "radar confirmed it!" without details and a source and preferably some supporting data is not worth much.
Eburacum
Senior Member.
Well, that's true. A lot of visual only sightings are largely forgotten, but a radar detection in the same area seems to give confirmation to the sighting, even if there is no overlap between the radar detections and the sighting. The Belgian cases described visible hovering objects (possibly stars), and the radar returns from the planes indicating fast-moving objects that were never seen by the pilots. Yet this is described as a 'confirmation'.
Eburacum
Senior Member.
There is a problem here, however; by modelling this phenomenon as a single continuous fuselage you might influence various witnesses to retroactively remember this as a single, hard-bodied object with a structure connecting the lights; this is called conflation, and some or many witnesses might now forever remember them that way.
However, actual film of the 20:00 sighting at Phoenix shows that the lights were relatively small, and changed position relative to one another, so could not have been attached to a single object.
There's also been this growing trend in the UFO communities that there are plasma entities, or "Plasmoids".
So we now have aliens, time travelers, other dimensional beings and conscious plasma entities to explain UFOs.
Similar threads
