A Triangular Problem
Sightings of "impossible" craft in the sky are universal. They are also
universally ignored. Ignored, at least, by the official channels and sources
of power in our society.
This is nothing new -- students of the UFO reality have always known
this. Nor is the blanket of denial and disinformation associated with
this topic anything unique. I have howled into the wind about this many
times, decrying the inability and unwillingness of our mainstream media
to discuss an entire range of topics. Yes, this is old news.
As strange as UFOs are, I often think that the silence of official channels
is more surreal than the objects themselves. How can it be possible that
so many thousands (millions?) of witnesses continue to be ignored?
One subset of the phenomenon, however, has broken through to the mainstream.
Perhaps we should say -- ahem -- the ‘fringes’ of the mainstream. These
are the infamous triangular craft. America’s mainstream culture, ever
rigid and narrow, yet acknowledges from time to time that such things
exist. Frankly, it would be hard not to. The reports are simply too many
and too clear.
They also come in constantly. Less than a month ago, as I write this,
was an interesting -- yet typical -- report. Shortly after midnight on
March 2, 2003, a security guard at a gated community in Dallas saw "a
single solid black triangle, with no lights of any kind," traveling west
for about 8 or 9 seconds. The object was completely silent, and seemed
to float across the sky at about 1,200 feet. The witness watched the triangle
disappear behind one of the homes, contacted the Dallas Police Department,
and was told that no one else had reported the object. This report is
available on the web at the National UFO Reporting Center (NUFORC). Indeed,
the witness spoke with Peter Davenport, who runs the organization, and
was found "to be quite sincere and credible." [1]
Here is another recent report from NUFORC. On January 24, 2003, a man
saw a triangular-shaped object while driving at night down a quiet Arkansas
road. He slowed down, turned off his radio, and rolled down his car window.
He wondered if this was a helicopter. But he heard no sound. Coming to
a complete stop, he watched the object hover 10 feet above a telephone
pole, and noticed that it had three lights (red, white, and blue), one
on each corner. He saw the object for a total of four minutes, "and then
it was gone."
Neither of these witnesses described the size of the craft they saw.
In fact, the sizes of these triangles have ranged from small to immense.
Most are slow-moving and low-flying; occasionally people describe them
as boomerang-shaped instead of triangular. The fact that they fly so low,
and so slowly, is a problem that demands an explanation, both scientifically
and politically. Complicating the matter are the many witnesses who describe
exceptional speed and maneuverability relating to these triangles, such
as flat pivot turns or incredible acceleration. It is a tricky problem,
indeed.
The famous Illinois "cop sighting" in early 2000 of a giant triangular
object is the best known case of the flying triangles. In this instance,
the object was substantially larger than a jumbo jet, flying at perhaps
500 feet altitude, either silent or extremely quiet, moving slowly, and
edged with an array of blinding white lights. All this is certainly extraordinary.
But what really makes this case difficult to explain is the object’s manner
of acceleration. In the words of one officer, it was able to shoot away
"in the blink of an eye" with "no sound whatsoever." One moment, it was
a few hundred feet away; the next moment, several miles away. [2]
What does that?
If this were an isolated incident, one could write it off as a mistaken
observation of some sort. But this is not isolated, and here the problem
deepens. For an object possibly identical to this one was seen many times
in the early 1980s in the Hudson Valley, just north of New York City.
On December 31, 1982, people from several different locations reported
such an object. This was no mere New Year’s Eve partying, either; the
object was filmed with a movie camera. The object was huge, triangular,
flew at less than 500 feet, had bright lights, made tight circles in the
air, and at one point shone a beam of white light onto a highway. In July
1984, the same or a similar object invaded the air space of the Indian
Point Nuclear Facility, disabling the electronic and communication systems
while it hovered over a reactor. During the early 1980s, the number of
witnesses to such events in the Hudson Valley numbered in the thousands.
Indeed, on one occasion, video was shot of a sufficient quality that it
was sent to the Jet Propulsion Lab in Pasadena. Conclusion: something
real, all right, but not a conventional aircraft. [3]
Then we have the Belgian cases, which seem to have been part of series
of sightings stretching from Britain to Russia from late 1989 to early
1990. On November 29, 1989, a dark triangular object, making a humming
noise, hovered over a Belgian police car and shone a brilliant beam of
light on it. Many people reported this object; it was seen throughout
the winter, then most spectacularly on the night of March 30, 1990. That
night, thousands of witnesses saw a low-flying triangular UFO (or UFOs)
with bright lights flashing in the center. This object could fly as slow
as 30 mph, but it accelerated to incredible speeds. Witnesses were adamant
that no plane belonging to any air force could have caught this object.
Indeed, that night the Belgian Air Force sent two F-16s to do exactly
that. The triangles were captured on several NATO radar stations; the
jet pilots could also track the objects on radar, and even see them –
at times.
But the F-16s – the top interceptors in the world – were completely outclassed
by the triangular craft. Not only could it accelerate at incredible speeds,
not only could it stop on a dime, but it could change its altitude almost
instantly. At one point, for example, radar installations and amazed witnesses
observed the triangle to drop about 4,000 feet in one second. That’s nearly
a mile.
Moreover, this object moved intelligently, at least in the opinion of
the Belgian Air Force Chief of Operations, Colonel Wilfried De Brouwer,
who stated "There was a logic in the movements of the UFO." Nick Pope,
who soon after this manned the "UFO Desk" in Britain’s Ministry of Defense,
had contacts within the Belgian government who "elicited the conclusion
that a structured craft had flown over Belgium that night." They had no
idea, they said, of what that object was. [4]
Like the other triangles people have seen, the Belgian object was real
enough. The real question is, to whom did it belong?
Ours? Or Theirs?
Many people have suspected this to be a secret American project. Officially,
however, there is no type of aircraft with a perfectly triangular planform.
The B-2 stealth bomber is an angular and odd looking beast, but it’s not
a triangle. Nor can it do what the triangles do.
There is good reason to believe that the U.S. has developed a triangle.
In August 1989, A former Royal Observer Corps member was working on a
North Sea gas rig about 60 miles off the Norfolk coast. This man, named
Chris Gibson, has been described as one of the world’s experts in aircraft
recognition, and competed in international recognition tournaments where
a long distance shot of an aircraft would be flashed on a screen for a
fraction of a second. At the time of the sighting, he was writing an aircraft
recognition manual.
What he saw that day was an matte black aircraft shaped in a perfect
isosceles triangle, with the nose angle at 30 degrees, in a refueling
operation with a KC-135. Two F-111 fighters accompanied the craft. The
triangular craft was slightly bigger than an F-111. Aviation writer Bill
Sweetman noted that "no aircraft other than a supersonic vehicle, or a
test aircraft for such a vehicle, has ever been built or studied with
such a planform."[5]
Generally, people have attributed this sighting to the fabled Aurora,
the alleged successor to the world’s fastest "official" plane, the SR-71
Blackbird. Of course, the Aurora doesn’t officially exist but the rumor
mill gives it dimensions that seem to be compatible with what Gibson saw.
But given that the Aurora (or the same aircraft under a different name)
exists, it is unlikely that this is the craft that buzzed Belgium in 1989-1990,
much less is responsible for the Hudson Valley sightings. The Aurora is
said to be hypersonic, meaning that it is faster than Mach 5, and is rumored
to move as fast as Mach 8. But, hovering? Changing altitude instantly?
There are no accounts of Aurora -- none by aviation writers, anyway –
that indicate it can do anything like that.
The Black Manta
There is an aircraft in the land of legends that comes closer to fitting
the description of some of these triangle sightings. It is the Black Manta,
TR-3, another aircraft that "doesn’t exist." All we have, apparently,
is the rumor mill, which gives this object the ability to hover silently.
There are said to be two very different versions, the TR-3A and the TR-3B.
The first is supposed to be about 45 feet long and 15 feet high, with
a 65 foot wingspan. The second is said to be a massive 600 feet across.
Bearing in mind that none of this can be confirmed, the most detailed
information I could find on this elusive creature of the sky is that,
among those who believe it exists, it is said to a tactical reconnaissance
aircraft, first operational in the early 1990s. Funding and tasking come
from the NRO, NSA, and CIA. The outer coating of the TR-3B is allegedly
reactive to electrical radar stimulation and can change reflectiveness,
radar absorptiveness, and color. It is therefore exceptionally stealthy.
More than this, however, it is said to have indefinite loiter time at
high altitudes (as high as 125,000 feet), and the ability to travel as
fast as – strap yourself in – Mach 9.
By no means am I an expert on the technology involved here. Those who
say they are tell us that the TR-3B has something called a Magnetic Field
Disruptor, which is a circular, highly pressurized, mercury-based plasma
filled ring surrounding a rotatable crew compartment. The plasma is accelerated
to extreme speeds which is said to result in "gravity disruption" and
can neutralize the effect of gravity on mass by as much as 89 percent.
This is not exactly antigravity, which provides a repulsive force, but
for all intents and purposes makes the vehicle extremely light, with obvious
correlations in performance, including acceleration in all directions.
This, at least, is the claim from the website of Edgar Fouche. One scientist
has told me that the technical details, such as the speed of rotation
of plasma) are "not credible." While Fouche’s site provides an excellent
overview of the Black Manta, much of the information derives from anonymous
sources, and it is always possible that details can be wrong even while
the big picture remains fundamentally sound. [6]
While recognizing that any discussion of the Black Manta is highly speculative,
some of the claims regarding it at least come close to the performance
characteristics of the triangular UFOs. Is the craft real? I have no idea.
While a few aviation writers acknowledge the possibility that it’s real,
no one can confirm it, and most appear doubtful. Indeed, there those who
even doubt that there is such a plane as the Aurora.
For my part, I find it difficult to deny that the U.S. military has a
flying triangle. Knowing the credentials of Chris Gibson, if he saw a
matte black isosceles triangle being refueled by a KC-135, I am prepared
to believe him. I am also prepared to accept that there are probably other
deep-black aircraft out there. The U.S. government has a history of declassifying
military technologies at its convenience. By the time the U-2 was public,
its successor, the SR-71 Blackbird, was not long in following. We learned
of the F-117A stealth fighter in 1988, for instance, only when it was
decided to increase production substantially and that it would therefore
be impossible to hide any longer.
Chronology Problems
But even the aforementioned candidates don’t explain the triangle phenomenon.
Even if something as exotic as the Black Manta is real, it is clear that
this would only explain sightings since the 1990s.
Or would it? How far back could we push the technology and this aircraft?
Could the Black Manta have been responsible for the Belgian sightings
of 1989 and 1990? And even if that is so, what does one make of the Hudson
Valley sightings, which are earlier still? At what point do we move from
the improbable, to the implausible, to the ridiculous?
I wonder whether the TR-3A or TR-3B explain the following sighting:
On this occasion, a clear fall night in Hastings, Minnesota, multiple
witnesses saw a triangular craft approach from the east at a high rate
of speed. When it was nearly overhead at about 5,000 feet, it "stopped
dead in its tracks." The object had a reddish orange light at each of
its corners; these lights sometimes turned greenish. It sat motionless
and silent for half a minute, then made a slow 180 degree turn, "leaving
a vapor trail." It then sat motionless for a few seconds and took off
at an amazing speed. It stopped dead at a point about 15 miles away from
them. It then lifted straight up "at incredible speed" and was gone.
The object in question certainly seems to have had much in common with
the Belgian triangle, except it was seen in mid-October of 1968. As far
as I know, this report has not been investigated, but there are quite
a few triangle reports on NUFORC that stem from the late 1960s. Most of
these reports provide good detail and appear to be truthful. These are
available for anyone to read.
At the NUFORC, you can read about 25 reasonably detailed reports of triangular
UFOs that were seen from 1967 through 1973, and there are several that
are even earlier. This must be the tip of the iceberg: the first of these
accounts was posted only in 1998, when the world wide web finally became
a convenient tool for these people. We will never know how many 1960s
witnesses of triangular craft died before they had the opportunity to
post their story, but I’m sure there were a few.
Indeed, British researcher Victor Kean, who started Project Triangle
on the world wide web tracked many triangle reports in Britain that took
place in the 1990s, but pointed out that his first reliable triangle report
dates from September 8, 1960. This was a "triangular-shaped craft with
three white apex lights and a red light underneath," seen in Tyneside,
Britain and two other locations that evening, all within a 10 mile radius
and within 75 minutes of each other. Did someone invent flying triangles
in the 1950s? [7]
If one feels that reports from that long ago are inherently unreliable
and need to be discarded, what does one make of the large number of triangle
reports from between 1973 and the early 1980s? That is, prior to the Hudson
Valley wave?
Reports that go so far back pose a serious problem of explanation. There
are several factors to consider. First is technology. Granted that the
black world of the military has always been substantially ahead of most
civilian technology, still, we can do a reality check by observing the
development of leading edge aircraft during those years. For example,
the first flight of the F-15 Eagle took place in July 1972. It was the
first USAF fighter to have a thrust to weight ratio greater than 1:1,
meaning it could accelerate going straight up. The first F-16 prototype
flew at Edwards AFB in January 1974. The Rockwell B-1 bomber first flew
in December 1974. The Apache helicopter prototype first flew in September
1975. These machines are all impressive, but none are anything like the
reported triangles.
It is also important to realize that it was only by the mid-1970s that
"fly-by-wire" (e.g. very advanced computer technology enabling an aircraft
to make many adjustments per second) was becoming practical enough to
allow for unconventional planforms such as the flying wing. Previously,
the flying wing design (and by extension the triangle) had been inherently
unstable.
Other problems arise when we look at the history of American defense
spending. For instance, the USAF budget in 1980 was about $39 billion.
Starting in 1981, with the advent of the Reagan presidency, it began a
dramatic rise, peaking in 1985 at $99.4 billion. This is an extraordinary
development, and while we can acknowledge that there was always a supply
of secret money for special projects, we can also recognize that there
was much more of it starting in the early 1980s. Presumably this translated
into greater operational possibilities for leading edge technology. In
other words, while it would still have been possible to fund expensive,
secret, and exotic aircraft prior to 1980, it would have been easier to
do this after 1980. [8]
Thus, when you examine the history of triangle sightings, track what
is known of the development of advanced aircraft, and study the trends
in defense spending, it becomes difficult to credit many of these reports
as secret technology.
Difficult, but not perhaps impossible. After all, how many years ahead
of our most advanced open and public technology are these triangles?
It’s hard to be certain, but it doesn’t seem to be a stretch to anticipate
similar capabilities in the public realm within the next twenty years.
Political Problems
But to acknowledge that some group in the secret caverns of the military-industrial
complex made this type of breakthrough opens up a new series of questions.
Let us return to the Belgian case, for instance. Belgian Air Force Colonel
De Brouwer speculated that if these objects were B-2 or F-117 stealth
aircraft (the only known American aircraft that might remotely fit the
description), then the USAF had made no requests for this type of mission,
as it would be required to do. He also added the obvious fact that the
triangles did not "in any way" match the characteristics of either U.S.
aircraft.
Still, the Belgian government asked the U.S. government whether or not,
in effect, these triangles were American. The U.S. Air Force informed
the Belgian Air Force and Ministry of Defense that "no USAF stealth aircraft
were operating" during the period in question. Now, this could be seen
as merely a carefully worded statement. No "stealth" aircraft -- might
this allow the overflight of an aircraft that is not, technically speaking,
stealth? After all, the triangle over Belgium was tracked at least some
of the time on radar. As far as this statement is concerned, it could
simply mean that a non-stealth but highly advanced U.S. aircraft was responsible.
[9]
If so, then we have a disturbing conclusion regarding how the U.S. Air
Force treats its NATO allies. With the advent of Gulf War II, this may
not surprise too many people. But in 1990, there was still a Soviet Union,
and the vestige of a cold war. At the least, it seems neither polite nor
intelligent to treat your NATO allies in such a manner.
Nevertheless, it strains credulity to see this as American technology.
Then again, the entire UFO phenomenon strains credulity. That is, until
you go through report after impossible report, recognizing that the impossible
is here and living quite well in this demented world of ours, thank you
very much.
The NIDS Hypothesis - Big Black Deltas
For now, that will have to do regarding the chronological problems posed
by the triangles. There are still a few possibilities to consider. The
National Institute for Discovery Science (NIDS), based in Las Vegas, Nevada,
has recently been looking into the matter of what it has termed Big Black
Deltas (BBDs). These are essentially the large triangles. [10]
In 2002 an anonymous aircraft researcher submitted a paper to NIDS ("Big
Black Deltas (BBDs): DoD, Not ET"). He argued that these objects are lighter-than-air
(LTA) craft, or rigid dirigibles, most likely powered by "electrokinetic"
drive, operated by the U.S. military. In other words, U.S. Defense Department
airships that serve as large transport vessels, able to carry huge payloads
at high or low altitudes, at speeds several times faster than surface
ships. The author of the paper theorized that they have existed since
the early to mid-1980s.
He theorized that these objects are quiet because LTA vehicles can make
use of the "unconventional" electrokinetic system. They would need no
propellers or jets, instead using aerostatic, lift gas, like a balloon.
All you might hear is a slight humming from high voltage control equipment
and an occasional coronal discharge in the older BBDs.
The NIDS author also discussed why the BBDs can accelerate so quickly.
I have to confess that my science breaks down at this point, but the explanation
is not especially detailed, either. The author argued that the LTA would
not require a power supply, as its energy source could be fed remotely
by a "ground based power system sending power to the electrokinetic platform
by either a tether wire or by microwave link." The maximum transmission
distance would be about 62 miles. The thrust to mass ratio of such a craft
would be far superior to that of a jet fighter, "between 1.7 to 1 up to
3 to 1 if lightly loaded," which would enable it to accelerate very quickly,
including up.
The author discussed other features of the BBDs, such as the ability
to turn without banking or its occasionally intense lights. He concluded
that "with a number of military mission profiles for such a craft and
the technologies to build it having been well developed for nearly a century
would any defense department NOT build it?"
This hypothesis seems primarily designed to address the Millstadt, Illinois
sighting of early 2000. As a result, we are obliged to ask, if this object
was ours, where was microwave transmitter? This object surely was not
tethered, and its acceleration wasn’t just high, it was very, very
high. Not everyone believes the power source concept described in this
anonymous paper is valid. One of my correspondents pointed out to me that
while beamed microwave power has been done, it requires a line of sight
and what is called rectenna, an array of dipoles which is dangerous to
anything that gets in its path, such as birds. I am not aware, for instance,
of reports of dead birds accompanying sightings of BBDs. Finally, it doesn’t
help that this paper is from an anonymous source. We know nothing of this
person’s actual credentials or motives.
NIDS has also plotted several hundred sightings of the BBDs (all from
the 1990s) on a map of the United States, trying to see a pattern. In
addition to using its own substantial database, NIDS obtained two other
substantial sources of data, from MUFON and UFO researcher Larry Hatch.
NIDS suggested that many of the BBD sightings occurred along corridors
between bases of the U.S. Air Mobility Command (AMC) and Air Force Material
Command (AFMC) . These two commands control the logistics of American
troop and equipment deployment. NIDS hypothesized, therefore, that the
Air Force is flying these objects between AFMC and AMC bases. [11]
This may be just as NIDS suggests. But although it says the similarities
among the various databases are "striking," I found the experience of
reading these maps a little like deciphering a Rorschach test. There does
seem to be a concentration of sightings along such "corridors," but I
can’t help wondering if there is another explanation here, and that this
is a case where one could find all sorts of patterns to fit other hypotheses.
NIDS did fine work and worded its conclusions carefully. It is to be
commended for this. But it must be noted that (a) its study includes only
reports from the 1990s (b) only includes reports of the large triangles
and (c) is restricted geographically to the United States.
There are such things as rigid dirigibles. An inventor name Michael K.
Walden demonstrated a fully solar-powered, remotely-controlled, LTA
vehicle, to the U.S. Department of Defense and Department of Energy at
Nellis AFB in 1977. They seemed to have been rather excited by this, but
never picked up the contract. [12]
I have already said that the long history of triangle reports poses serious
problems of explanation. But so does the geography. Researchers commonly
write as though the triangles are a North American and Western European
phenomenon. This seems to be true in the main, but I suspect it is mainly
due to more active reporting in those areas. In any case, it is not entirely
true. Russia, for example, has had many triangle reports, several that
occurred during the Belgian flap.
An especially interesting one occurred near Moscow on March 12, 1990.
Several groups of UFOs were seen, some of which were spheres and discs,
and some of which appeared to be huge triangular-shaped craft. Many local
people spent the night on their rooftops watching these silent objects
dart through the sky. In fact, during the spring of 1990, it appears that
Russia had more, and more spectacular, UFO cases than did Belgium. The
CIA retained several accounts of this wave from the Soviet-Russian media,
although CIA reports themselves, assuming they exist, have yet to be released.
Thus, while the NIDS explanation of Big Black Deltas may shed some light,
the hypothesis is far from proved, and at best is only a partial solution
to the mystery of the triangles. Are we to assume that some covert American
group was flying triangles (along with other UFOs) throughout Russia during
the decline phase of the Soviet Union?
A Shadow Government?
There is perhaps one last terrestrial explanation, but it isn’t a pretty
one. Could there be an ultra-black group behind the triangles, one that
is so far removed from ordinary channels that the American military establishment
has lost control of it? Could such a secret group exist?
Our national security apparatus has many layers of classification (including
above top secret) and extreme compartmentalization. There is no question
that the American military possesses Unacknowledged Special Access Programs
(USAP) funded by countless billions of secret dollars. Congress provides
no effective oversight of these programs, judging by the history of the
few secret programs of which we know. A great deal can get swallowed up
by our National Security State and we must recognize the possibility that
the flying triangles are one of those things.
It is at this point that an analysis of the flying triangles merges with
the UFO phenomenon itself. In the first place, the flight capabilities
of the triangles appear to match those of the more traditional flying
saucers. There are hundreds of known military encounters with UFOs. Most
of these are cases do not show overt hostility, but neither are they especially
congenial. Judging by the behaviors of both the American aircraft and
of these objects, the UFOs do not appear to be under the command of the
U.S. military. This can also be said of at least some of the triangles,
such as the one that violated the air space over the Indian Point Nuclear
Facility in 1984.
For many years people have been hanging around the outskirts of Area
51, watching all the fun things that fly around there. Bob Lazar and his
friends were there in the late 1980s, filming bizarre craft that could
hover and dart. In December 1990, Gary Schultz, a chemical physicist,
was with a large group of people when they saw, in his words: "a huge,
glowing saucer, which was pulsating a brilliant orange-red and flying
slowly over the Jumbled Hills - and it was being followed by a military
helicopter about a quarter mile behind." The object disappeared behind
the hills and into the Nellis Air Force Range, while the helicopter eventually
landed at a facility atop Bald Mountain.
There are many such accounts. Is this evidence that the U.S. military
is testing field propulsion, e.g. antigravity, flying saucers? Possibly.
We may have come very close to such a revelation in the very curious October
1, 1990 issue of Aviation Week & Space Technology, large portions
of which concerned deep-black technology programs, cryptic references
to not-fully-understood exotic technology, and reports of black quiet
triangles.
Would the other shoe drop? Would someone seriously mention the "U" word?
The magazine came perilously close to doing so. One wonders whether someone
else urgently desired to hush all this up. It is worth mentioning that
Phillip J. Klass, a long-time UFO debunker, was a leading figure with
the publication. Neither the staff of AW&ST, nor those of Jane’s
Defense Weekly, have followed up in a serious way on this.
Presumably they are still terrified of the UFO topic. Or perhaps there
something more involved, a quid pro quo? Whatever the answer, they
are the watchdogs that never barked.
Compare their silence to the fine work of journalist George Knapp. Here
is a man who obtained many solid leads out of Area 51, several of which
indicated efforts to understand and duplicate alien technology. He spoke
to members of Congress who were blocked in their attempts to get answers.
But no mainstream publication has followed up on his leads.
Conclusion
We are facing a situation in which we know that some triangles are ours
(as the 1989 sighting by Chris Gibson demonstrates), some triangles are
big, some are small, some do not appear to be "ours." If there is a single
terrestrial explanation for this, it would have to be a shadow group,
most likely among people deeply immersed in the world of black defense
technology who developed their own agenda independent of any formally
established government.
One person with whom I write, and whose judgement I have come to trust,
tells me he is "ninety-five percent" sure that somewhere along the line
the U.S. military and scientific minds in the secret world have indeed
developed operational field propulsion. In other words, defeated the problem
of gravity and are thus responsible for at least many of the triangles.
Another person, someone in whom I place high esteem and credibility, tells
me he thinks it’s unlikely this is so.
While this is difficult to sort out, I am still left with a nagging question:
if the American National Security State somewhere along the line invented
some version of the Flying Triangle, why is there no evidence that it
has ever been used in our recent wars? Would it not have been useful during
the Gulf War of 1991? Or now?
There are, of course, answers to this question. It may have been used
secretly and no one has found out. Or, the military planners may have
believed that it was unnecessary for victory and hence still more valuable
as something secret. Still, it seems odd.
I think it’s likely that there are secret, terrestrial, triangles out
there. But it also looks to me that some, and perhaps most, of the triangles
are "not ours," that is, alien of some sort. In my own view, since I think
this is true of the UFO phenomenon in general, it is not especially difficult
to see it as true of the triangles.
What we can say for now is that there is no explanation yet offered to
the public that brings all these triangles down to earth. There is a large
body of evidence that continues to elude conventional explanation. The
triangles do not all appear to be "ours."
Notes
- The National UFO Reporting Center website is at http://www.nwlink.com/~ufocntr/
- Darryl Barker’s website, Illinois UFO is at http://www.dbarkertv.com/UPDATE.htm
- Night Seige, The Hudson Valley UFO Sightings, by Dr. J. Allen Hynek,
Philip J. Imbrogno, and Bob Pratt, Llewellyn Publications, Second Edition,
1998.
- See Don Berliner (with Marie Galbraith and Antonio Huneeus), UFO Briefing
Document, Random House, 1995.
- Bill Sweetman, Aurora, p. 13-15, 64.
- See http://www.pastpresentfuture.info/alien_ufo_secret_fouche_tr3b.html;
by no means is Fouche’s the only such site on the Black Manta.
- Project Triangle website is at http://homepage.ntlworld.com/project_ft/
- Walter J. Boyne, Beyond the Wild Blue, A History of the United States
Air Force, 1947-1997, St. Martin’s Press, 1997, p. 282.
- "Belgium and the UFO Issue," US Department of Defense document, 30
March 1990.
- NIDS Triangle Research is at http://www.nidsci.org/researchnews.html
- "Comparison of Unidentified Triangular or Deltoid Aircraft Location
Patterns in Three Independent UFO Databases: NIDS, MUFON and Larry Hatch."
National Institute for Discovery Science, June 2001. http://216.128.67.116/pdf/triangularcraftdatabases.pdf
- See Lighter than Air Solar, http://www.lvcm.com/walden/
