Black Triangle Photo's that havent been debunked.

Originally posted by crazyewok
reply to post by Skywatcher2011

 

Ones a photographer and the other one? Well ok I give you that he can go

But I dont think you got the idea of the thread did you?

Im not asking for anyone to do the research for me, I have been digging around ATS and web in gennral for a week and will likley continue for many many more.

Im just asking for those who are intrested and/or have time if they want to help or haveing anything please do.
Cause no matter how good my research is I am still likley to miss something. A secound, third or even 100th pair of eyes is always a good thing.


I am finding people patronising attitudes rather insulting. No wonder no one borther to do real investigations and you only get the loonys....everyone put off

Dont let em get you down! I think some of those people are just burnt out of forgot they needed help at one point! I think they also forgot this is a COMMUNITY? We are supposed to be helping eachother, [snipped] Keep searching! I cant provide anything though, sorry, just popped in to give you high five for searching.

In the immortal words of Tupac " Keep yah heeeeadup"

reply to post by ItDepends

Lets start with these.





www.ufocasebook.com...

www.huffingtonpost.co.uk...

www.thetruthbehindthescenes.org...

There is a report from the Robert Bigelow funded NIDS project on Black Triangles out there somewhere in PDF form. You might try and find that as it basically comes to the same conclusion that you are trying to prove.

Col. John Alexander had a lot to do with the report, but the NIDS team at that time was full of braniacs including Dr. Jacques Vallee.

Prepared in 2004, the report is titled NIDS Investigations of the Flying Triangle Enigma.

reply to post by The GUT


Thanks

reply to post by crazyewok


Oh, ok crazyewok, I think i understand better what you are looking for. Tell me if I am still incorrect. You are looking for pictures, photographs of black triangles, that have been carefully and officially reviewed by credible experts in photo analysis which are proven not to be CGI, fake toys, mock-ups or things hanging from strings etc., actual photos that show a triangle in the sky or even on the ground somewhere, right?

Here is a Triangle Link

Showing a number of Black Triangles that may help in your research. Still a little confused though. Not many people deny seeing these type of objects and even the United States government has indicated that they have similar type craft.

Such as this U.S. military aircraft

So we know that black triangles exist, and for all we know at this point, they are man made military projects. There is no proof to suggest otherwise. I'm not trying to be argumentive, I'm just saying that yeah, tons of photo's out there that show a real triangle, not faked or CGI. The next question is; What are they? And all I'm saying is, without knowing or proof otherwise, these are military objects either operational or in an experimental phase.Peace!!

Originally posted by ItDepends

Oh, ok crazyewok, I think i understand better what you are looking for. Tell me if I am still incorrect. You are looking for pictures, photographs of black triangles, that have been carefully and officially reviewed by credible experts in photo analysis which are proven not to be CGI, fake toys, mock-ups or things hanging from strings etc., actual photos that show a triangle in the sky or even on the ground somewhere, right?

Exactly.

I just want to see if there is anything iv missed.

These black triangles have always fascinated me as well. I'm sure at this point in the game you have already checked several avenues but I would still recommend Phillip J Imbrogno's notes. Several years ago I had a similar interest in these craft and retrieved his book via Kindle, very very good stuff I must say. I wish you luck in your endeavor.

Here's a link to the NIDS report cited above by The GUT. Interesting read, particularly this part in my opinion:

The trend of open deployment as described in this report is not consistent with secret operation of an advanced DoD aircraft. For example, crude examination of the (anecdotally derived) patterns of deployment of previously developed DoD stealth aircraft programs, including the F-117 and the B-2 aircraft, show that the pattern of deployment of unacknowledged F-117 and B-2 aircraft, prior to their acknowledgement by DoD, is different from the patterns for the Flying Triangles.

Prior to acknowledgement of the F-117 and B-2 aircraft, only rare night time sightings occurred in the sparsely populated sections of Nevada, California and a few other states (see F-117 and B-2 in 12). Flying at low altitude over populated areas was rarely reported for the F-117 or B-2. In contrast, the Flying Triangle deployment, especially during the 1990s, appears more consistent with the open and public operation of these aircraft. In some cases (for example see the above description of the Port Washington Triangle), the deployment may be more consistent with an attempt to display or to be noticed. There appears to be little or no attempt to hide. Hence, the cumulative recent data from several databases lead us to modify the tentative NIDS hypothesis, published in July 2003, that the Triangles are covertly deployed DoD aircraft.

There is also a great book that just came out recently dealing exclusively with these flying triangles called Triangular UFOs: An Estimate of the Situtation, from which I culled the following:

There is a pdf report here UFOEvidence.Org that you may find interesting

It's a shame that you post asking for help and all you get from the majority is criticism or JFGI. Unfortunately ATS is full of people with psychological problems...

Originally posted by EasyPleaseMe
Unfortunately ATS is full of people with psychological problems...

Tell me about it.

Not to jump on the bandwagon of thrashing your thread, but you could have at least included the ones you already have to make the thread interesting and for others to discuss.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
Not to jump on the bandwagon of thrashing your thread, but you could have at least included the ones you already have to make the thread interesting and for others to discuss.

If you look to the above you will see them


I would have added them to the front page but the edit time ran out.


So not helpfull.

In fact if your post is not helpfull dont bother posting

reply to post by ItDepends


I think the crafts we know about that are "black triangles" fall a little short of the alleged mile(s) wide black triangles people describe seeing.

I have no real interest in UFOs as far as aliens, but I would love to see something like the pheonix lights if it was really as some described it (the videos are mediocre at best).

reply to post by crazyewok


I think it was a pretty helpful post.. In the future you might put more effort in your thread. It's also really obnoxious when a thread creator tells someone posting in their thread to "f off."

As for the not debunked photos above.. the first is a fake, 2nd and 3rd are probably military crafts and _ wouldn't consider black triangles, and the 3rd I believe is a picture of the pheonix lights, but perhaps a mock up of it.

The huffingtonpost ufo was created for a competition by Jeff Wilson.
www.ufocontest.com...

www.youtube.com...
The youtube video is a longer version.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow

I think it was a pretty helpful post.. In the future you might put more effort in your thread. It's also really obnoxious when a thread creator tells someone posting in their thread to "f off."

The thread was just to get some ideas and pointers it wasnt meant to be a really indepth look. Thats for another day yeah and it was abit obnoxious why a changed it. Its just annoying and not helpfull that everyone posts the same thing and deosnt get the point of the post. To help gather data so I can add anything iv missed. That way I can make a better post later on Its called a work in progress.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
As for the not debunked photos above.. the first is a fake, 2nd and 3rd are probably military crafts and _ wouldn't consider black triangles, and the 3rd I believe is a picture of the pheonix lights, but perhaps a mock up of it.

edit on 27-7-2013 by GogoVicMorrow because: (no reason given)

Well my hypothesis is that black triangles are a unidentified form of Aircraft so 2 and 3 fit that hypothesis. Though whether the rest of the project fits the hypothesis depends on the field work I plan to do over the next few years.

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
Not to jump on the bandwagon of thrashing your thread, but you could have at least included the ones you already have to make the thread interesting and for others to discuss.

Agreed

This is the approach I always use to start a thread conversation. Provide my evidence to the table so members do not double post or...they learn something to start and then begin to contribute something of value to the thread!

Originally posted by crazyewok
Well my hypothesis is that black triangles are a unidentified form of Aircraft so 2 and 3 fit that hypothesis. Though whether the rest of the project fits the hypothesis depends on the field work I plan to do over the next few years.

I am sorry...but you didn't state your hypothesis ANYWHERE in your thread...or did I miss it completely?

Don't hypotheses follow an "If.....Then..." statement?

Originally posted by Skywatcher2011

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
Not to jump on the bandwagon of thrashing your thread, but you could have at least included the ones you already have to make the thread interesting and for others to discuss.

Agreed

This is the approach I always use to start a thread conversation. Provide my evidence to the table so members do not double post or...they learn something to start and then begin to contribute something of value to the thread!

Ok Im getting really p'd off now,


Yeah great you made your dam point! Now move the hell on and stop detrailing the dam thread.

If your going to post, post something usefull! The point been made. Move on or get lost basicaly.

Originally posted by crazyewok

Originally posted by Skywatcher2011

Originally posted by GogoVicMorrow
Not to jump on the bandwagon of thrashing your thread, but you could have at least included the ones you already have to make the thread interesting and for others to discuss.

Agreed

This is the approach I always use to start a thread conversation. Provide my evidence to the table so members do not double post or...they learn something to start and then begin to contribute something of value to the thread!

Ok Im getting really p'd off now,


Yeah great you made your dam point! Now move the hell on and stop detrailing the dam thread.

If your going to post, post something usefull! The point been made. Move on or get lost basicaly.

OP...this is your thread...lead by example and you post something YOU researched on here rather than just jabbering away causing the topic to get off track.