An answer to the black triangles?

So these craft are always around VIP's or nuclear weapons and the places that involves them.

I have a good reason to believe that the at least 'normal' sized BT's are US DOE/secret service/NRO drone.


they fly around our sky with impunity because they are ours.


The few times I have seen them it has been around the POTUS when he was in town(Trump and the Clintons). And the other time I saw it was when the secret service secure transport was going past our town.

i think they are advanced observation platforms and have all sorts of good sensors and have the ability to fly roof top un noticed, what more could you ask for a bomb sniffing, bad guy finding, POTUS protecting drone? i bet you dollar to doughnuts if there was a real emergency one of these craft would pick up the POTUS

a reply to: penroc3

I have read over the years in POPULAR MECHANICS and AVIATION WEEK articles about stealth blimp projects. They all speculated as to their missions. Being huge and stealthy the only mission possible for them would be reconnaissance or clandestine inserting of special operators in high risk areas.

Many years ago during a military reunion I was talking to our guess speaker who was a platoon commander of a SEAL unit. He laughingly said that they could be inserted from space in future operations. I took it as SEAL bravado but retrospectively maybe he was referring to insertions from black triangular air vehicles...just guessing.

a reply to: penroc3

This is a weird subject..

I honestly have no idea who do they belong to, or are they even made by humans,

But i do know that their stealth tech is not a traditional one by no means, pretty sure we have no clue about their true potential and capabilities.

-edit, if they are build by humans, the builders,owners and operators do not answer to any one country or government, they would be the vehicles for those who are behind the curtains, the true elite and leaders of our world.

a reply to: penroc3
The first step would be to get some good videos of what you're talking about, then we can go to the next step of speculating on what they might be. But it seems odd to hear people say they see these things flying around, yet nobody ever seems to have any video of them.

a reply to: penroc3

Well if those "black triangle" seems to be observed around "sensitive" places like you described... maybe there is a bias here.
Let me explain, those are sensitive areas by defitinion so the'yre naturally more carefully watched and monitored. So the more people there is watching the sky and monitoring, the higher the chance someone mistake something for an UFO. I mean triangular shapes at night are the more common reported because and our brains at night tend to connect the dots and try to see shapes when there is not necessary anything.
What I'm trying to say is that report of those types happens everywhere and are debunked for most of them. So the fact that we have more report of them above those snsitive areas aren't really an evidence since more people watch the sky in those areas, it is normal tohave more report.

Let me be clear, i'm not saying that those triangle/stealth lighter with exotic form of propulsion (like ultrasound or whatever) aren't real. I'm just trying to bring a little touch of skepticism about those sightings, cause human testimony are the lowest form of evidence.

I think the main challenges to the human built drone theory is that the performance far out paces what is currently available anywhere.

Specifically; speed, maneuverability and operational time (Fuel/Energy)

Our ability to overcome one of the above challenges and achieve the performance we have seen would be a stretch, all three would be incredibly unlikely.

Edit to add, I may be generalizing too much the performance of the UAP's and the black triangles.

a reply to: MDDoxs

That we know of. If even half of the rumors that I've heard are even within several miles of the ballpark there's some interesting tech in the black world. I'm not saying that there are big black triangles flying low and slow over major cities, and all the other things that they're supposedly doing, but saying that we know all the tech that's out there is wrong too.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I agree with your comment, that is why I highlighted the proposed challenges people have made against the drone theory based on latest UAP observations.

Would you agree with me that in theory we would see some relative development in a related, publicly known, technology that may have been developed on tandem to a significantly advanced drone?

I know you are our resident subject matter expert, so to your knowledge, during the age of the SR-71, which was highly classified, was there not a publicly known technology with relatively similar performance? Something like the concord? sorry I am definitely not as knowledgeable on this subject.

a reply to: penroc3

Weren't these things like a mile wide?

Why would you build a mile wide drone?

a reply to: MDDoxs

Concorde = civilian airliner, Mach 2.2 at 60 000 ft
Blackbird : Mach 3.3 up to 90 000 ft (for the A-12, i heard an unoficial record at 94)
Not really the same, there is a big difference between mach 2 and 3

Oh and the blackbird did it's first flight almost 7 years before the concorde

The lack of photographic evidence is a puzzling one.

a reply to: keukendeur

the one i have seen VERY close ibn less than 100ft away and at roof top level was no bigger than a F16

And just because people think things aren't possible because they see a passenger jet or even a F35 and say that's impossible doesnt mean it doesnt exist.


what about the official government videos and admissions of craft like these clearly exist.

I would bet my life that they our ours and that they are drones and we have been refining the tech for god knows how long.


there are all sorts of tricks that aircraft can play to fool your perception of them

in WWII they aircraft would light their wings during the day so they 'disappeared' in the open sky over the ocean.

what if the crazy manurviours we see are just some advanced counter measure for the real craft to make its escape.

its been over 50 years from when the US started its real space race, you don't think they stumbled across better propulsion methods as we learn more and more about the fabric of reality?


what if the drone could reduce its inertia by even 50%, that would mean a human in the seat could take 20G's and not black out and it would allow some of the more strange movements we have seen.

originally posted by: keukendeur
a reply to: penroc3

Weren't these things like a mile wide?

Why would you build a mile wide drone?

Eyewitnesses reported this UFO as the size of a stadium when they saw it up in the air and thought it was much further away than it was; haven't you figured out yet that eyewitness estimates of size, distance and speed of unidentified flying objects are highly unreliable?



There are rare exceptions, but generally, this is true:
You Can't Know the Distance, Size, and Speed of UFOs

Often you will hear "expert" witnesses proudly and with certitude declaring the distance, size, and enormous speeds of UFOs (where "UFO" despite its actual meaning is taken to be an alien craft). I discuss why this is simply not possible based on a visual observation.

a reply to: Spacespider

or the real ones are scooped up by AFOSI


ETA: look at the picture nick pope had on his wall, what was that?

and why did the pictures disappear from the newspaper and the people who took it got a butt load of cash for the photos and negative's

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
haven't you figured out yet that eyewitness estimates of size, distance and speed of unidentified flying objects are highly unreliable?

I guess I hadn't figured that out yet...

I'll get my ignorant ass out of this thread.



*geez...just trying to add something to a thread and make some conversation.

a reply to: Spacespider

The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence tho.
I mean for this case of BBT, I'm not fully convinced.
At the same time there is evidence that stealth airship were at some point studied, and we know there is companies that are really working on some triangle airship for the military. And there might be some classified ones also.
I suggest you this article :
www.thedrive.com...

But there is adifference between a stealth airship loitering at very high altitude (which is feasible) and massive triangle loitering above major cities before accelerating at whatever crazy speed. Not saying it is impossible but that would be extremely surprising.
Ans those "traingles" seems to have been spotted for decades and decades by thousand of people but.. never a clear picture or never any physical evidence. Maybe sightings are enough for some people to be convinced but personnally i'm not entirely.
I will stick to saying "I don't know" and maybe wait for more evidence.
But it is an interesting subject for sure.

a reply to: MDDoxs

Contrary to popular belief, most of the SR-71 program, outside of where they flew, and exact performance specs, wasn't classified. The announcement of their existence was made before they ever made their first flight. The A-12 program on the other hand was classified on just about every level.

Sometimes we see a public program that has similar performance, if it's in a general field such as engine performance. A good example is quiet boom technology. We're seeing that develop in the white world now, with the X-59 that Lockheed and NASA are working on, but the rumor is that it's existed for several years at minimum in the black world on demonstrators or test beds. Another good example is optical technology used on satellites and ISR platforms. But other times, we won't have any idea until we see something unveiled, if it ever is. Concorde and the SST programs were more modeled on an XB-70 type platform than the SR-71. A lot of the technologies incorporated into the Blackbird program weren't seen until much later on other aircraft.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Thanks for the information. The X-59 program looks neat. I cant wait for super sonic commercial flight?

That all being said, would you still expect to see some comparable technology in the public light close to what we see from the UAPs or likely not?

a reply to: MDDoxs

Probably not, considering it would be a more specialized field. Maybe in a few more years we'd see some propulsion advancements, but most of what they supposedly can do is pretty specialized military stuff, not the kind of thing that we'd expect to see in the commercial field.

originally posted by: buddah6
a reply to: penroc3

I have read over the years in POPULAR MECHANICS and AVIATION WEEK articles about stealth blimp projects. They all speculated as to their missions. Being huge and stealthy the only mission possible for them would be reconnaissance or clandestine inserting of special operators in high risk areas.

Many years ago during a military reunion I was talking to our guess speaker who was a platoon commander of a SEAL unit. He laughingly said that they could be inserted from space in future operations. I took it as SEAL bravado but retrospectively maybe he was referring to insertions from black triangular air vehicles...just guessing.

I think you missed one, increasingly vital, possible mission for a "huge and stealthy" platform; especially if said (airship) platform could (can) loiter for long periods at extremely high altitudes (once referred to as "near-space - see the Rand Corporation study on the subject):

- The detection, tracking, and timely destruction of hypersonic weapons.


The vehicles you refer to would be large enough to easily support KW, or perhaps even Mw, power generation to energize a variety of DEW's.