• NEW! LOWEST RATES EVER -- SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY THE VERY BEST PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, eight years young! For a low subscription fee, you can download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive, member-only, After The Paracast bonus podcast, featuring color commentary, exclusive interviews, the continuation of interviews that began on the main episode of The Paracast. We also offer lifetime memberships! Flash! Take advantage of our lowest rates ever! Act now! It's easier than ever to susbcribe! You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

Black Triangle over Paris


Goggs Mackay

Administrator
Staff member
Whilst watching 'The Parnormal Report' - one of Jim Harolds various paranormal outputs, a recent night-time video has surfaced supposedly of a black-triangle UFO doing some slow speed manouvers over Paris, France.

The video appears to be shot in night-vision mode and the detail is pretty darn good.
A few things immediately struck me about the craft. Firstly, it seems to make no sound whatsoever. Secondly, it flys way to slowly to be using conventional lift of any kind and at one point is stops dead in mid-air with no visible means of lift keeping it floating so.

At one point, it is possible to see the whole upper side of the craft and I noticed two rear inward-canted stabliser 'fins', which kind of makes me think this craft maybe some sort of existing technology augmented with some kind of anti-gravity.
Of course, all discussion is moot if it turns out to be a hoax, although my gut feeling is that it is not. If it is indeed real footage of a real craft, several questions immediately spring to mind:

Who owns this craft? I believe most people in the Ufology field would guess that any back-engineered tech from a crashed saucer, or indeed and craft built with 'help' from ET's would mostly likely be owned by the US. But, if this is indeed so, why would the US be testing such a craft over a foreign country at the other side of the Atlantic Ocean, when the US itself has ample protected airspace to test their own craft away from prying eyes. Of course, the 1989/90 triangle flap over Belgium would also make a strange choice of place to test an American craft. So, maybe such black triangles are not human built/owned and whoever does own/fly them may have their own reason to be flying them over France and Belgium.

I believe there have been a few recent videos of triangles flying over California and Florida and if they are true then it would make US vehicles flying over France even harder to fathom - I mean, why bother risking such obviously classified vehicles being seen in foreign countries where they would even run the risk of being chased and/or shot down by the host nation?

Another Intriguing aspect of the video concerns the 'standard' light configuration of these triangles. I believe they usually have a light (or whatever it is ) at the apex of each of the three corners of the craft. Then, there is usually another, slightly larger light at the exact centre of the whole craft. In this Paris video, near the end of the footage, is seems like the centre light suddenly flickers a few times and then all of a sudden, morphs into what seems like a solid sphere of very bright light. The sphere has very defined edges and is most like a solid sphere of light. Then this sphere flickers again, then instantaneously grows in volume several times and then seems to encompass the whole craft, with the result being that you no longer see the triangle at all, just this perfect sphere of light, whose centre is where the centre of the triangle was. All most intriguing.

I would love to hear if some other forum members have seen the footage, and what their own thoughts on it are.

I provide the direct link to the video on youtube here:

 
That video was supposedly shot in 2009, Ed Fouche who has made a name for himself talking about the TR3B and Aurora project thinks its a CGI fake

You know I've seen this video posted somewhere on youtube. Most of the people who I know think it's CGI and not real. And unfortunately I've seen hundreds of fake UFOs and Flying Triangles. Enlarge to full screen and stop it every second. Look at the left side of the triangle and you'll see the point of the triangle is changing shape which looks unnatural. If I was forced to bet, I'd say it's fake. Ed

These points by another poster are worth consideration

1) For ball of light at that that size and intensity, it should have illuminate the entire craft. For example, if you were to film a light bulb flipping on next to a wall, the light will illuminate the wall showing further details of the wall texture. This is not the case with this video. It looks as if it was done in After Effects, an ellipse shape was drawn and composited on the 3d craft object, with some added glow effects to emulate light.
2) There is no lens flare in the video. When filming any kind of bright light, you will always notice that there is a bit of flare or distortion to how light behaves when it hits the lens on the camera.
3) Supposedly, this looks like it was filmed outdoors. There is no wind noise and the ambient noise sounds a lot like it's indoors.

http://www.alienscientist.com/forum...Triangles-DoD-Welcome-to-my-guest-spot./page5
 
bsflag-1.gif
 
Well thanks guys for your input. I know paracast listeners in the main are not interested in perpetuating hoaxes. In fact, they annoy the hell out of me!
It's fantastic to have people with different skills on tap, especially regarding video analysis.
I suppose the next question is - does anyone know of any triangle footage that at least so far, looks good?
 
Well thanks guys for your input. I know paracast listeners in the main are not interested in perpetuating hoaxes. In fact, they annoy the hell out of me!
It's fantastic to have people with different skills on tap, especially regarding video analysis.
I suppose the next question is - does anyone know of any triangle footage that at least so far, looks good?

Just for fun

050418_ascender.grid-6x2.jpg


V-shaped airship bigger than a baseball diamond

"The full-size station in our grand vision is 2 miles across," John Powell, the company's founder, told MSNBC.com.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5025388...ce-space/t/airship-groomed-flight-edge-space/
 
this is the paracast forum. you do not need to show who says ' you don't know the power of the dark side' - don't we already know? all of us? lol.
loving the 'B.S' flag raising!

Off Topic - It's kind of a double twist. I have a Harley Street Glide which is a "bagger," a bike with saddlebags. When you forsake your sport bike and get one, it is said that you have "gone to the dark side." A friend kept calling it the "Star Wars" bike due to all the electronics. So, I named it Vader. I use the sig on the motorcycle forums I frequent where "If you only knew the power of the dark side" takes on an entirely different meaning. Here, it means exactly what Darth said. LOL! - Now back to our regularly scheduled program.

Feel free to steal the BS flag, I did.
 
That video was supposedly shot in 2009, Ed Fouche who has made a name for himself talking about the TR3B and Aurora project thinks its a CGI fake



These points by another poster are worth consideration



http://www.alienscientist.com/forum...Triangles-DoD-Welcome-to-my-guest-spot./page5
Firstly Mike, thanks for your input. Myself, I sorta thought that because the video seemed to be shot in night vision, which of course is just amplification of available light, that the white sphere may actually not be very bright, the night vision bringing it up to what we see, if that is the case then perhaps the actual light may not have been enough to illuminate anything else?
But, regardless, if other factors show this particular video to be a fake, then I am happy to go with that. It's so easy in this game to be disheartened when something you believe may be good evidence turns out to be fake. I certainly occasionally have to remind myself that all the hoaxes in the world do not make all the sightings/phots/vids fake. It's the whole sign al/noise ratio that the paracast always mentions.
Something that has always bothered me too is why would someone genuinely interested in the truth of the UFO enigma, bother to muddy the water with well-done fakes that obviously have taken time, patience and skill to produce? I find it hard to believe someone like us who is interested in UFO's would piss in the pool with fakes. So who is going to the bother of producing these pretty good quality fakes? I wonder if it isn't some part of official dis-information.
A point I have made in another thread about the whole UFO cover-up is that those who are perpetuating the cover-up are clever and sly enough to allow some 'real' information to be leaked. I think actually inserting real info along with all the B.S makes the whole thing that much harder to fathom - there has been a cover-up for so long you have to believe that those involved are pretty good at what they do, the fact is, even the average citizen is just too bamboozled by all the conflicting information to make any sense of it all, which I think is the exact result the cover-up perpetrators are aiming for.
 
Something that has always bothered me too is why would someone genuinely interested in the truth of the UFO enigma, bother to muddy the water with well-done fakes that obviously have taken time, patience and skill to produce? I find it hard to believe someone like us who is interested in UFO's would piss in the pool with fakes. So who is going to the bother of producing these pretty good quality fakes? I wonder if it isn't some part of official dis-information.

I think that is an excellent question. I think it may be similar to things we see in the religious scene. Believers have often manufactured, exaggerated, and exploited evidence only to rationalize it as being for the greater good of either themselves or their cause. Historically pop-ufology is full of individuals who have done similar. I too wonder at the quality of some of these fakes and don't know whether to chalk them up to students of film and graphics design doing homework assignments or counter-intelligence productions. The black triangle video in question is a good example.

If these things are real and truly exist then I think it is reasonable to think real photographs of them exist. The odds are with the untold millions of cameras in the hands of such a large percentage of the population, not to mention all the CC and security cameras in operation world-wide, that an image of a true UFO, Triangle, or Orb has been captured. But what is what? They all seem to eventually come out to revealed as hoaxes, fakes, or misidentifyied.

A point I have made in another thread about the whole UFO cover-up is that those who are perpetuating the cover-up are clever and sly enough to allow some 'real' information to be leaked. I think actually inserting real info along with all the B.S makes the whole thing that much harder to fathom - there has been a cover-up for so long you have to believe that those involved are pretty good at what they do, the fact is, even the average citizen is just too bamboozled by all the conflicting information to make any sense of it all, which I think is the exact result the cover-up perpetrators are aiming for.

I think you can look at the history of the UFO subject and see where the public's perception of it has been influenced and controlled many times by the United States military. I don't see how anyone who studies the subject for very long could deny it. It seems to me that the whole aliens from space aspect is the major fictional compent behind which the real truth rests. I think the flying saucers mystic was a ploy used by military counter intelligence that has gotten out of hand more than once. I also think you can see where different individuals or perhaps organizations have inherited the cover-up over the years produced different approaches, stories, and uses for the flying saucer mystic.

While it seems undeniable that UFOs do actually exist I think everything we think we know about them is highly suspect. Certainly anything coming from AFOSI that we've been treated to shouldn't be taken seriously.

I have always suspected that the real holders of the truth about UFOs is the ONI. However, the only ex-ONI I know of that makes any kind of statement about UFOs is Montel Williams and his treatment of the subject is laughable.
 
I think that is an excellent question. I think it may be similar to things we see in the religious scene. Believers have often manufactured, exaggerated, and exploited evidence only to rationalize it as being for the greater good of either themselves or their cause. Historically pop-ufology is full of individuals who have done similar. I too wonder at the quality of some of these fakes and don't know whether to chalk them up to students of film and graphics design doing homework assignments or counter-intelligence productions. The black triangle video in question is a good example.

If these things are real and truly exist then I think it is reasonable to think real photographs of them exist. The odds are with the untold millions of cameras in the hands of such a large percentage of the population, not to mention all the CC and security cameras in operation world-wide, that an image of a true UFO, Triangle, or Orb has been captured. But what is what? They all seem to eventually come out to revealed as hoaxes, fakes, or misidentifyied.



I think you can look at the history of the UFO subject and see where the public's perception of it has been influenced and controlled many times by the United States military. I don't see how anyone who studies the subject for very long could deny it. It seems to me that the whole aliens from space aspect is the major fictional compent behind which the real truth rests. I think the flying saucers mystic was a ploy used by military counter intelligence that has gotten out of hand more than once. I also think you can see where different individuals or perhaps organizations have inherited the cover-up over the years produced different approaches, stories, and uses for the flying saucer mystic.

While it seems undeniable that UFOs do actually exist I think everything we think we know about them is highly suspect. Certainly anything coming from AFOSI that we've been treated to shouldn't be taken seriously.

I have always suspected that the real holders of the truth about UFOs is the ONI. However, the only ex-ONI I know of that makes any kind of statement about UFOs is Montel Williams and his treatment of the subject is laughable.


Yes, regarding religion I am right with you. We cannot deny all the space-brother-welcomer types for whom ufology is a quasi-religion, certainly a cult. I fell I have virtually nothing in common with them. Like the poster, I suppose I WANT TO BELIEVE.
But more than that I don't want to get suckered and I like to think my mind is not made up and I am willing to admit when B.S surfaces. I imagine like a lot of people I was taken with many of the Billy Meier photos from the 70's etc, and like many people, once I saw the wedding cake I realised that at the very least, most of Meier's photos were fake. I saw a youtube video in which someone builds a convincing model beamship WITH ONE HAND, and suspends said craft cleverly enough not to show how. Something I thought was once good evidence just crumbled when I realised that even pre-digital, hoaxery of a good quality was possible and was being done.
But there are still cases and vids etc that still blow me away and it only takes one to be real to validate belief in non-human made UFOs.
So to quote a rather loveably blunt Stanton Friedman, 'I don't care about the cases you can explain, I am interested in the ones's we can't.'
You can take it from one from the inside once, half the point of anything created to investigate serious stuff is to lie about it. That's a given.
 
Yes, regarding religion I am right with you. We cannot deny all the space-brother-welcomer types for whom ufology is a quasi-religion, certainly a cult. I fell I have virtually nothing in common with them. Like the poster, I suppose I WANT TO BELIEVE.
But more than that I don't want to get suckered and I like to think my mind is not made up and I am willing to admit when B.S surfaces. I imagine like a lot of people I was taken with many of the Billy Meier photos from the 70's etc, and like many people, once I saw the wedding cake I realised that at the very least, most of Meier's photos were fake. I saw a youtube video in which someone builds a convincing model beamship WITH ONE HAND, and suspends said craft cleverly enough not to show how. Something I thought was once good evidence just crumbled when I realised that even pre-digital, hoaxery of a good quality was possible and was being done.
But there are still cases and vids etc that still blow me away and it only takes one to be real to validate belief in non-human made UFOs.
So to quote a rather loveably blunt Stanton Friedman, 'I don't care about the cases you can explain, I am interested in the ones's we can't.'
You can take it from one from the inside once, half the point of anything created to investigate serious stuff is to lie about it. That's a given.

Do you want to Believe, or do you want to know? there is a difference in mind set between the two.
The believer will hold on to even debunked and fake evidence in the blind hope that faith will make the UFO and space brothers real (evidence and critical thinking be damned).

Personally from reading your post I think you want to know not believe if you get what I mean.
 
That is something I think a lot about. Is belief actually voluntary or is it a condition or state that arises from exposure to evidence? The trick being what is accepted by the mind as evidence. One's standards of evidence is then pretty key.

For the longest time I wanted to believe that aliens were visiting the Earth. In the process of being a UFO enthusiast since the age of 9 or so, I came to believe some things were true that I didn't want to believe were true. As I grew up and learned more about how to think critically and how to avoid logical fallacies I was able reassure myself by imposing a need for absolute empirical evidence. Over the decades I believed one thing for while and then another later on after further reading, thinking, or conversation. Everyone experiences that sort of thing.

You are so right, believing is not knowing. Personally I recognize that my critical thinking skills and the application of them are inconsistent and in need of constant improvement, but there is something going on under the hood, in some unconscious fashion, fueled by some will to believe that I fight. I know I'm not the only one to experience this sort of thing. I can say that I have no real reason to believe something and at the same time recognize that at some level I believe it, that I've taken it seriously, that it has stuck somewhere and refuses become dislodged.

It irks me the Nth degree that after decades of looking into this subject I actually know so very little about it. I know UFOs exist. I know some are ours, but I can only say I believe that others are not. However, I can tell you that it isn't because I want to believe it. On the contrary, at this stage I would prefer to believe that if we have been visited in the past that they do not return or that no one else will discover us. The ramifications are just too great. We would hope for a cosmic ice-cream man but the statistical probability seems to lie more in the realm of the cosmic Conquistador or worse. Good grief, I should change my handle to Johnny Doom or something.

Obligatory black triangle comment: I have come to believe that black triangles and boomerangs are ours and not theirs (whoever they are) but I certainly don't know this.
 
Do you want to Believe, or do you want to know? there is a difference in mind set between the two.
The believer will hold on to even debunked and fake evidence in the blind hope that faith will make the UFO and space brothers real (evidence and critical thinking be damned).

Personally from reading your post I think you want to know not believe if you get what I mean.

Very astute point you've made. You are correct in that I definitely want to know whatever truth there is, be it good or bad. I wish it to be certain ways and not other ways. I do not want to blindly believe but I suppose the poster I am quoting really means 'I hope this is similar to what I think it is.'
I really want UFO's to be real and for quite a few reasons. I want my belief in life elsewhere to be proved correct, I want to know that our understanding of science will continue so that we are not constrained by the physics of the last 100 years etc. I want to think that humans will travel to other solar systems and beyond and the star trek/star wars fan (not geek, just fan!) in me would love there to be some huge galactic civilisation of wonderously different life forms and technology and culture. For me 'I want to believe' means really 'I really want a lot of things I associate with ufology to be proved as real.'
I am certainly not one of those who thinks any disclosure is just round the corner, in fact I think we may be surprised at perhaps how little there would be to disclose in terms of hard facts. I am not convinced any government knows too much more than the best informed ufologist. They may be scratching their collective heads just as we do!
 
That is something I think a lot about. Is belief actually voluntary or is it a condition or state that arises from exposure to evidence? The trick being what is accepted by the mind as evidence. One's standards of evidence is then pretty key.

For the longest time I wanted to believe that aliens were visiting the Earth. In the process of being a UFO enthusiast since the age of 9 or so, I came to believe some things were true that I didn't want to believe were true. As I grew up and learned more about how to think critically and how to avoid logical fallacies I was able reassure myself by imposing a need for absolute empirical evidence. Over the decades I believed one thing for while and then another later on after further reading, thinking, or conversation. Everyone experiences that sort of thing.

You are so right, believing is not knowing. Personally I recognize that my critical thinking skills and the application of them are inconsistent and in need of constant improvement, but there is something going on under the hood, in some unconscious fashion, fueled by some will to believe that I fight. I know I'm not the only one to experience this sort of thing. I can say that I have no real reason to believe something and at the same time recognize that at some level I believe it, that I've taken it seriously, that it has stuck somewhere and refuses become dislodged.

It irks me the Nth degree that after decades of looking into this subject I actually know so very little about it. I know UFOs exist. I know some are ours, but I can only say I believe that others are not. However, I can tell you that it isn't because I want to believe it. On the contrary, at this stage I would prefer to believe that if we have been visited in the past that they do not return or that no one else will discover us. The ramifications are just too great. We would hope for a cosmic ice-cream man but the statistical probability seems to lie more in the realm of the cosmic Conquistador or worse. Good grief, I should change my handle to Johnny Doom or something.

Obligatory black triangle comment: I have come to believe that black triangles and boomerangs are ours and not theirs (whoever they are) but I certainly don't know this.

RE: Black Triangles - I am undecided as to ownership of the triangle/boomerang shape craft but I wonder if in your thinking, you are including for instance, the huge craft seen in Phoenix? Some witnesses estimated the size to be several thousand feet across. I would love to know where the launch-point of such a massive craft is and if it was built in a hangar etc. All the associated technology related to upkeep of any flying machine has to be on hand and a place would be needed where such a craft could stay hidden when not in use, otherwise it would be visible from spy satellites surely?
Also, the craft reported over Stevenville, Tx was supposedly very big also. I am not convinced that if such craft really exist that they are ours. Unless, of course, we do have a parallel secret space program and we can build and house such large crafts in some sort of orbital space-dock.
I think in the Alien/Human craft-owning/operating stakes, that size DOES matter!
 
Back
Top