Three Clear Photographs of Black Triangle over South Carolina

reply to post by sjag9


I think its a very good picture to say the least. Compared to most of the fuzzy hazey bs i see most of the time.with the technology today in home cameras youd think ppl would clearer pix. but this one is fairly vivid. it does look an awful like a stealth type aircraft or the nasa scram jet to be used after the sts model is done away with. bu thell not many ppl have a pik of this so your a lucky one, keep your eyes lookin up man and good luck happy hunting.

Good photos,looks a lot like Nasa junk-well they call it junk but to every one else it looked like a black triangle

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Very true, but maybe seeing as the FB-22 concept has been very refined and probably put into development already the need for using a secret test site like Area51 is not so much of a necessity. The public already know a fair deal about the proposed FB-22, even down to what it will look like. I recently read Lockheed had released an updated version of the FB-22 concept that stated its top speed would be mach 1.92, how long would it take for a plane that could go that fast to cut through the could blanket? My guess is not very long at all.

Originally posted by 0nce 0nce

Helllooooo, McFLY!, you are in a UFO forum, discussing a fake UFO, which could possibly start of a UFO religion/cult if it fools enough people.

If you seriously couldn't make that connection yourself then.... WOW..... really.... WOW....

....plumbeus



[edit on 12-6-2009 by 0nce 0nce]

So....out of the hundreds of UFO's/Triangles/Objects that appear in the sky all over the world every year, One black triangle appears in South Carolina, and now you're worried this specific one is going to start a cult? I hope I don't sound rude when I say that we're really stretching here.

P.S. Please stop sending me harassing emails/private messages. Not cool.

well this looks ake if you ask me!!!!

Originally posted by Arbitrageur I never saw any Auroras or FB-22s fly overhead like the common jets, so I can't make a personal confirmation of this sound reduction, but if somebody else has maybe they can confirm if my guess is correct that they are not as loud, and maybe even quiet enough to not be heard in a thunderstorm, especially if only using a fraction of maximum power.

I found an additional possible explanation for the sound reduction:

The winds associated with the thunderstorm. These folks have done some research into cases where people have seen helicopters flying overhead and have not heard the helicopter sound in certain windy conditions:

www.caelestia.be...

So we have four factors to consider regarding the sound:

1. The possible "muffler" effect of burying the engine inside the aircraft and mixing the exhaust with fresh air to reduce the infrared heat signature may also reduce the sound level.

2. The attitude and maneuvers photographed do not require full power and we know jet engines make less noise at reduced power levels.

3. The wind may be carrying a large portion of the sound away from the observer, drastically reducing the perceived sound.

4. Whatever residual sound reaches the observer's ears as a result of the above 3 factors is not loud enough to be heard over the ambient thunderstorm sounds, sort of a signal to noise ratio issue. The person who took the photographs raised this point so we have to give it some weight accordingly.

So maybe between these factors combined with the unknown distance, the lack of sound being heard by the photographer doesn't rule out a jet-powered aircraft, like the FB-22.



[edit on 16-6-2009 by Arbitrageur]

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Wow, some great research my friend. Im currently speaking to a friend who works for Pratt & Whitney engines as a jet mechanic, im trying to find out if he has any information regarding an FB-22 prototype and where/if its being built.

I've seen one of these triangles in Florida....Three lights were on it with one in each corner (didnt see that in this picture) but I believe its black projects in the military because I live fairly close to a military base...

Although I believe in aliens I don't believe the triangle crafts are in conjunction with E.T.'s.

but honestly...what do any of us know? I could be wrong.

[edit on 6/16/2009 by AceOfAces]

reply to post by refuse_orders
Thanks my friend, well you're the one with the good eye who spotted the resemblance. Maybe your friend at Pratt and Whitney knows someone involved with the F135 engine (though if they opted for the GE F136 engine for the prototype would P&W know?):

www.air-attack.com...

Rather than using the F-22's Pratt & Whitney F119 engines, the FB-22 is likely to have either the new F135, which was developed from the F119 to power the new F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, or the rival General Electric F136. In either event, the FB-22 would have greater speed than the B-1B, the fastest US bomber.

And I can't find anywhere they admit to having an FB-22 prototype yet, though that doesn't mean they don't have one, or it could be a variant as you said, or similar craft.

reply to post by Arbitrageur


Im not sure on what planes/engines he works on but I have heard him moan about stripping engines down after bird strikes, i know hes been there at least 10 years so might have some insider knowledge... who knows!?. I have another friend starting work in 6 weeks time on the C-130's engines, although i doubt he will have any info what so ever. Still once he's started i can cast out another line and start fishing.

I'm a graphic artist and it looks completely fake to me. Does not look convincing at all. When blown up and brightened, it just looks like someone has taken a thick pen and drawn a basic looking triangle onto the background and manipulated the sky. All the photos look like a pretty lame cut and paste job.

[edit on 16-6-2009 by kindred]

Originally posted by peacejet
The photos are perfect. Best evidence of aliens visiting us. A flag for this thread.

Looks like that supposed top secret US space, or spy, plane: Aurora

www.abovetopsecret.com...

I personally doubt its the fabled Aurora, one look at the shape of it, it fits with conventional aircraft. Also the speeds which the Aurora is supposedly able to travel would render it very unlikely to get caught by camera. I might be wrong though, ya never can tell!

EDIT: Spelling (sorry )

[edit on 16/6/09 by refuse_orders]

Originally posted by PINDARFOX12Compared to most of the fuzzy hazey bs i see most of the time.with the technology today in home cameras youd think ppl would clearer pix.

You would think yeah, but you might be wrong...

What if the UFO (or stealth plane) uses electromagnetic radiation to create a plasma shield around itself? You would need such a field to negate gravity.

If you look at such a craft what would you see? You would see a fuzzy blurry almost there craft... So don't be so quick to THINK you know anything

but this one is fairly vivid. it does look an awful like a stealth type aircraft

It does doesn't it? Complete with the tail fins... looks a lot like this one from AFRL

Revolutionary Hypersonic Aerospace Vehicles
With Plasma Actuators That Require No Moving Parts



Air Force Research Laboratory press releases
www.thelivingmoon.com...

"Look Ma... No Ailerons!"

Those doubting the fact that this looks like a stealth aircraft obviously have no idea how stealth works...

Check out this...
en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by zorgon
What if the UFO (or stealth plane) uses electromagnetic radiation to create a plasma shield around itself? You would need such a field to negate gravity.

Do you have some information that such a technology exists? The part about creating a plasma shield with electromagnetic radiation doesn't sound too hard, but I don't see how that would negate gravity? If you can point me to more information about this, I'd be interested to learn more about it. I know a lot about physics but I wasn't aware gravity could be negated like that.

But if the government can tell us it was a weather balloon at Roswell and then 50 years later admit they spent 50 years lying to us about the weather balloon story, who knows what other secrets they're keeping, maybe they have technology the public doesn't know about yet.

Regarding whether it could be the Aurora, I did mention I wasn't ready to rule that out but I don't think it's the most likely candidate. Granted, the Aurora is supposed to have top speeds at somewhere between Mach6-mach 20, but the highest speeds will only be possible at high altitude, because traveling that fast at lower altitudes would melt or destroy the plane from friction with the atmosphere. So it would have to be capable of traveling at lower speeds at lower altitudes. I guess the main reason I didn't think Aurora was not so much speed, but maneuverability, those photos seem to show a nice little turn away from the photographer well within the capabilities of the YB-22 type craft but I imagined Aurora to be less maneuverable (more like the space shuttle)...I could be wrong about that, who knows how maneuverable Aurora really is, but that's just my guess.

Originally posted by refuse_orders
Those doubting the fact that this looks like a stealth aircraft obviously have no idea how stealth works...

Check out this...
en.wikipedia.org...

That's a good article and it contains a section why I think it's unlikely to be a model as had been suggested:

Highly stealth aircraft like the F-117 Nighthawk and B-2 Spirit are aerodynamically unstable in all three axes and require constant flight corrections from a fly-by-wire system to maintain controlled flight. (snip)... in the pursuit of increased maneuverability, most 4th and 5th-generation fighter aircraft have been designed with some degree of inherent instability that must be controlled by fly-by-wire computers

The craft in the photos looks aerodynamically unstable, unless there is a vertical stabilizer we can't see due to the angle, but it looks like there isn't one, just like the YB-22. While theoretically it could be possible to put a very expensive flight control system capable of flying an aerodynamically unstable craft in a radio controlled model, how likely is that really? Not very in my opinion. But as the Wikipedia article suggests, the computer controls that make it possible to control an unstable design that a pilot couldn't otherwise control are standard fare in the stealth craft, and since it's a secret technology the model makers don't have it. Again, I won't rule out a model but it just seems unlikely for this reason.

Aurora craft ?? we "know" that a lot of "UFO" footage are only(!) man made air craft, with Extra Technology (E.T. ?!! ).

Just check "aurora craft" on Google Image search, I think a lot of images look like these 3 pics, don't you ?

Im rarely a skeptic in these matters,but thats just a bad photoshop job. It looks like to me someone took old photos of a storm cell and got crafty(no pun intended) Usually if its too good to be true,it is. Seriously most all cams these days have a vid function for one. Why not shoot a short video. Two they are too perfect. Three they look pixilated when zoomed into. The size is wrong also.If you look at the surroundings the clarity and size arent proportionate to the distance of the craft. Nice try though. At best it may be a UAV depending on the closest reserch facility, but typicaly its not SOP to send one out in a storm...unless the fence to the research facility is behind the camera operator... Good looking out though! Its better to debunk a pic than never see it at all!

At least these are clear photos for once.
But without any idea of the distance from the camera, it's hard to determine the scale. Also, unless this object is hovering shouldn't there be motion blur? Inconclusive.