• SUPPORT THE SHOW AND ENJOY A PREMIUM PARACAST EXPERIENCE! Welcome to The Paracast+, five years young! For a low subscription fee, you will be able to download the ad-free version of The Paracast and the exclusive After The Paracast 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! For a limited time, you can save up to 40% on your subscription. You can sign up right here!

    Subscribe to The Paracast Newsletter!

"Triangle" sighting last night - miltary?

Siani

Despiser of religious nuts
Just after nightfall last night, I saw what looked like a classic flying triangle. It had three lights at each point of the triangle, and a central, blinking red light. But it was accompanied by the unmistakeable sound of a jet engine. I couldn't see any other aircraft in the vicinity, although there are NATO aerial exercises going on in the region (south and west Wales, UK) at the moment.

Although this clearly wasn't a bona fide UFO, I thought I'd post it, to raise awareness that the military appears to have an aircraft that carries lights in the same configuration as those reported on FTs. This could explain a lot of the 'lights in the sky' type triangle reports - but obviously not the ones where the triangular craft themselves, not just the lights, are seen.
 

Hoffmeister

There is no spoon
Just after nightfall last night, I saw what looked like a classic flying triangle. It had three lights at each point of the triangle, and a central, blinking red light. But it was accompanied by the unmistakeable sound of a jet engine. I couldn't see any other aircraft in the vicinity, although there are NATO aerial exercises going on in the region (south and west Wales, UK) at the moment.

Although this clearly wasn't a bona fide UFO, I thought I'd post it, to raise awareness that the military appears to have an aircraft that carries lights in the same configuration as those reported on FTs. This could explain a lot of the 'lights in the sky' type triangle reports - but obviously not the ones where the triangular craft themselves, not just the lights, are seen.
Yeah the stealth bomber has three lights underneath it in an exact triangle, they are particularly bright when it takes off. Also, as far as I am aware, I think all planes have to have a blinking light on them when they fly. Thats one of the main problems with triangle sightings, the latest stealth airplanes look just like them.
 

fitzbew88

Skilled Investigator
Just after nightfall last night, I saw what looked like a classic flying triangle. It had three lights at each point of the triangle, and a central, blinking red light. But it was accompanied by the unmistakeable sound of a jet engine. I couldn't see any other aircraft in the vicinity, although there are NATO aerial exercises going on in the region (south and west Wales, UK) at the moment.

Although this clearly wasn't a bona fide UFO, I thought I'd post it, to raise awareness that the military appears to have an aircraft that carries lights in the same configuration as those reported on FTs. This could explain a lot of the 'lights in the sky' type triangle reports - but obviously not the ones where the triangular craft themselves, not just the lights, are seen.
You didn't say it outright, but you were looking at it from beneath? Could you see the outline of the craft itself or just the lights? I guess I'm asking: were the lights at each point of an enclosing silhouette or were the lights themselves arranged in a triangular pattern?
 

fitzbew88

Skilled Investigator
Yeah the stealth bomber has three lights underneath it in an exact triangle, they are particularly bright when it takes off.
There is nothing unusual about the B2 Spirit's light configuration, and the configuration certainly does not conform to the "classic" black triangle reports. If anything, the B2's light configuration appears even more diminutive than a typical aircraft, keeping in line with its intended modus operandi: stealth.

I'm not sure what you mean when you say the lights are "...particularly bright when it takes off..." but I will give you the benefit of the doubt and infer you mean when the planes landing lights are on, they are brighter. When they are off, they are not so bright.

In flight, the landing lights would not be on, in fact they are recessed into the wheel wells. (Not visible when the landing gear is retracted.)

Whatever the black triangles are (and they may very well be some type of military craft), the reported light configurations do not appear to have anything to do with illumination or air safety and I wonder if they might be somehow related to propulsion. Of course, this theory is somewhat dubious since some of the triangles reportedly have no [visible] lights at all.

Thats one of the main problems with triangle sightings, the latest stealth airplanes look just like them.
What do you mean by the "latest stealth airplanes"? Perhaps you are not talking about the B2 (or F-117) but some more speculative vehicle.
 

Hoffmeister

There is no spoon
Sorry i didnt realise you were an expert on B2's as well as the probabilities of extraterrestrial life in the universe.
I meant that when you watch a B2 take off, it has three big bright lights underneath. These stay on for a while but go dimmer (and may well go off altogether after a while - i'm unfortunately not an expert in this either).
 

Siani

Despiser of religious nuts
You didn't say it outright, but you were looking at it from beneath? Could you see the outline of the craft itself or just the lights? I guess I'm asking: were the lights at each point of an enclosing silhouette or were the lights themselves arranged in a triangular pattern?
No, I was flying over it on my broomstick ;):D.

Yep, I was looking at it from below. I only saw the light configuration, not the craft itself. In the sighting of a triangle I had in February, I could see a dark, triangular outline, as well as the lights.
 

fitzbew88

Skilled Investigator
Sorry i didnt realise you were an expert on B2's...
Fortunately, you don't have to be an expert to look at a picture of an airplane and see where the lights are.

I have no desire to just spew things out and hope they fall into the right place.

...as well as the probabilities of extraterrestrial life in the universe.
If by being an expert you mean not jumping to irrational conclusions based on non-evidence, then yes I am an expert.

I meant that when you watch a B2 take off, it has three big bright lights underneath. These stay on for a while but go dimmer (and may well go off altogether after a while...
As far as I can tell, and I will apologize if I am corrected, this is just nonsense. There are no "big bright lights" on the ventral surface of a B2 (excluding of course the landing lights which are not visible unless the landing gear are extended).

Here is a photo of the ventral area of a B2. I'd be grateful if you would point out the "big bright lights".
 

fitzbew88

Skilled Investigator
No, I was flying over it on my broomstick ;):D.
LOL! Now that's funny, it would also be much more interesting than a FT. Ha ha.

Yep, I was looking at it from below. I only saw the light configuration, not the craft itself. In the sighting of a triangle I had in February, I could see a dark, triangular outline, as well as the lights.
So on this latter sighting, it's safe to say (?) the lights were in a triangular formation and the shape of the craft itself was not discerned.

Any impression of size? I'm merely indulging my "live-vicariously-through-other-people's-sightings" curiosity.
 

Hoffmeister

There is no spoon
Also, here is a thread I found on an aviation site where people discuss a B2 bomber with ... suprise suprise... a light on the left and right wing, and one in the middle...
but wait why doesnt your picture have lights on the plane... oh yeah because guess what, the B2 is able to turn its lights off, and its during the day and the strobe light is used for poor visibility conditions. Believe it or not, all planes have to have lights on them..

http://www.aviationbanter.com/showthread.php?t=7767

Why don't you join that aviation website, find someone to follow round, and the make comment on every single post they make, whether you know what your talking about or not
 

fitzbew88

Skilled Investigator
Also, here is a thread I found on an aviation site where people discuss a B2 bomber with ... suprise suprise... a light on the left and right wing, and one in the middle...
but wait why doesnt your picture have lights on the plane... oh yeah because guess what, the B2 is able to turn its lights off, and its during the day and the strobe light is used for poor visibility conditions. Believe it or not, all planes have to have lights on them..

http://www.aviationbanter.com/showthread.php?t=7767

Why don't you join that aviation website, find someone to follow round, and the make comment on every single post they make, whether you know what your talking about or not
You didn't answer my question: Where are the [three] big bright lights? Even if the lights are off, they should still be visible (especially if they are "big bright lights").

The link you shared is useless...one poster disputed the existence of a strobe light on the belly of the craft and the port/starboard nav lights are a no-brainer. (The nav lights are visible in the photo I shared, although they certainly wouldn't be called "big" or "bright".)

In truth, it wouldn't make sense for a strobe light to be on the bottom of any aircraft. The whole purpose of the strobe light is so that other aircraft can see it (weather conditions are not directly relevant). They are mostly mounted on the top of the aircraft.

This is not an opinion or anything like that. The B2 either "...has three big bright lights underneath..[that] stay on for a while but go dimmer..." or it doesn't. Whether this is true or not has a bearing on whether the B2 is a suitable solution for FT sightings. As far as I can tell (using the evidence of my own eyes) this does not seem to be a reasonable theory.

If you can suitably document they three lights somehow, I'd be grateful.
 

fitzbew88

Skilled Investigator
i'd be greatful if you would stop being such an ass but hey you can't have everything in this world
I'm sorry but if I think you are saying things that don't have a bearing in fact (and it catches my attention), I am more than likely going to say something.

As far as I can tell, the B2 doesn't have the light configuration you're describing.

Let me come at the question differently: why do you think it does?
 

fitzbew88

Skilled Investigator
Here's a 4:59 Youtube video of the B2 in a variety of lighting conditions and orientations. Other than the landing lights (which are visible during takeoff, landing, taxiing) I don't see any evidence of any ventral lighting at all.


I looked for a strobe on the ventral area, but I did not see one.

Hoff, I think you probably just saw footage of a B2 somewhere landing or taking off, and just didn't realize that the landing lights you were seeing weren't visible during typical flight.

The B2 is certainly a solution for some UFO reports, but I think we will have to look elsewhere for a solution to the FT's, especially when lighting configuration is taken into account.
 

Hoffmeister

There is no spoon
I honestly can't believe i'm wasting my time with this, but yes as you have pointed out it is the landing lights that I have seen. I've just asked my housemate (who is an aviation expert) and he says that he is 80% sure the B2 has three landing lights in a triangle.
He also says that whilst landing lights are used for lighting up the ground for takeoff and landing, they are also left on in some occasions when doing low level flying or various other instances which probably account for a lot of people mistaking them for the alien craft type triangles.
I have seen them myself only on documentaries but I don't have time to go trawling the internet for them just to prove a point, if you want to do it be my guest.
So there we go then, my original point was to say that the B2's and other flying wing type craft look like the black 'alien' triangles, which I don't think is in dispute. The lights thing was a side point but in my eyes I am sure that the original statement is correct.

i'm starting to think you're stalking me on this website because every time i make a post you pop up disputing everything I am saying. And where has it got us in this thread?
Its been a waste of both of our times, has railroaded the OP's thread into some petty argument, and has probably made us both look like pricks.
What was the point?
Seriously mate, i genuinly don't have anything against you, but trying to attack my posts when all you have done is look at some picture you found on the internet is not helping improve discussions on here.

On a note to the OP though, my housemate says that last he heard, there werent any B2's stationed in the UK. Maybe it was a different type of airplane.... i dont know
 

Hoffmeister

There is no spoon
oh and also, he says he thinks the strobe is on the bottom.... and I can see two planes above my house now at the moment that have strobes on the bottom
 

fitzbew88

Skilled Investigator
I honestly can't believe i'm wasting my time with this, but yes as you have pointed out it is the landing lights that I have seen. I've just asked my housemate (who is an aviation expert) and he says that he is 80% sure the B2 has three landing lights in a triangle.
He also says that whilst landing lights are used for lighting up the ground for takeoff and landing, they are also left on in some occasions when doing low level flying or various other instances which probably account for a lot of people mistaking them for the alien craft type triangles.
Well, there is no doubt the B2's have landing lights attached to their landing gear and if the gear are extended and the lights are on they would have a triangular configuration when viewed from below. So tell your "aviation expert" housemate that he can be 100% sure instead of just guessing.

The frequency with which B2's fly around with their wheels extended is a matter of conjecture; at least I don't know how we would find out. I'm guessing it would be rare, especially considering the B2's unique profile. Drag is not the B2's friend.

It seems like we are both now in agreement the B2 doesn't have "three bright lights" on the ventral area of the aircraft, at least once the landing lights are discounted.

I have seen them myself only on documentaries but I don't have time to go trawling the internet for them just to prove a point, if you want to do it be my guest.
Yes, the ten seconds it took to find the Youtube video was a bit overwhelming. I hope my schedule can recover.

So there we go then, my original point was to say that the B2's and other flying wing type craft look like the black 'alien' triangles, which I don't think is in dispute.
No no no. This is still very much in dispute. As a matter of fact I cannot think of a FT report that I thought was a good candidate for a B2 solution (and B2 is usually my first consideration).

Another problem with this theory is that most FT's are described or rendered in drawings as acute triangles, whereas the B2 presents an obtuse triangle.

What do you mean "other flying wing type craft"?

The lights thing was a side point but in my eyes I am sure that the original statement is correct.
No no no. You were offering that the B2 was the solution for FT's because the B2's have "three bright lights" on their undersurface. After modest scrutiny, it turns out what you were saying was: The B2 is a good solution if it happens to be flying overhead with its gear extended and its landing lights on. That's an entirely different thing.

i'm starting to think you're stalking me on this website because every time i make a post you pop up disputing everything I am saying.
Good to know, thanks.

And where has it got us in this thread?
Its been a waste of both of our times, has railroaded the OP's thread into some petty argument, and has probably made us both look like pricks.
What was the point?
I disagree. You offered the B2 up as solution for Siani's report, and I didn't think that's reasonable (still don't). Especially since your theory seemed to be predicated on a lighting configuration that does not exist. (Well, aside from the landing lights.)

We must remember that Siani also reported a "blinking red light" in the center of the triangle of lights. I still have seen no evidence that the B2 ever displays such a light.

The theory is still a little nonsensical in that many aircraft have landing lights on each landing gear which form a triangular pattern of lights when viewed from beneath. Why do we "pick on" the B2?

Seriously mate, i genuinly don't have anything against you, but trying to attack my posts when all you have done is look at some picture you found on the internet is not helping improve discussions on here.
Attacking your posts? Gosh, I hope these two threads aren't weighing you down too much emotionally.

On a note to the OP though, my housemate says that last he heard, there werent any B2's stationed in the UK. Maybe it was a different type of airplane.... i dont know
Frankly, there just aren't that many of these planes around. (Wikipedia says only 21 were built.) Like I said earlier, the B2 is probably a solution for at least some UFO reports, but I think we will have to look elsewhere for a solution to the FT's.

oh and also, he says he thinks the strobe is on the bottom.... and I can see two planes above my house now at the moment that have strobes on the bottom
He "thinks" there is? Is he more than 80% sure? This is not something we have to guess at, there is a vast amount of aircraft video and other aviation-related documentation available on the internet that we can peruse to get to the truth of this.

All I care about is whether your B2 as a solution for the FT is a valid theory or not; I'm still skeptical. It doesn't seem honest to write off an anomalous report by using a rare aircraft behaving anomalously.
 

Hoffmeister

There is no spoon
So when i write a post suggestiing that some triangles might actually be alien, you're all over me saying that they aren't, and that you dont believe that I am a skeptic.
When i try to explain away a sighting as non paranormal, you're all over me saying that my explanation is rubbish again....

The fact is, i dont really care what you say, i have an opinion that:
1. Some, or possibly quite a large amount of black triangles are just mistaken identity with stealth or flying wing type craft
2. There is a possibility that the OP saw a terrestrial stealth craft

These are my opinions, and I reserve the right to keep them regardless of what you say about them.
Since you flamed me in the other post for suggesting that some craft might be alien... what is your opinion of what the OP saw if its not a stealth craft?

And stop saying "no no no, you weren't trying to say 'x', you were trying to say 'y'", i know what i was trying to say, if you got a different interpretation of it, then that was unintended
 

fitzbew88

Skilled Investigator
So when i write a post suggestiing that some triangles might actually be alien, you're all over me saying that they aren't...
What? In this thread?

...and that you dont believe that I am a skeptic.
When i try to explain away a sighting as non paranormal, you're all over me saying that my explanation is rubbish again....
No, what we are discussing is whether the B2 is a good candidate for Siani's report or even FT's in general. That's really the only thing I care about.

I don't really know if you are a skeptic, I think we would have to spend some time agreeing on a mutually acceptable definition.

The fact is, i dont really care what you say...
Good to know, thanks.

i have an opinion that:
1. Some, or possibly quite a large amount of black triangles are just mistaken identity with stealth or flying wing type craft
2. There is a possibility that the OP saw a terrestrial stealth craft
Well, I hope you can see that's a far cry from saying:

Yeah the stealth bomber has three lights underneath it in an exact triangle, they are particularly bright when it takes off. Also, as far as I am aware, I think all planes have to have a blinking light on them when they fly. Thats one of the main problems with triangle sightings, the latest stealth airplanes look just like them.
...which is a statement that that does not seem to have been very well thought out.

These are my opinions, and I reserve the right to keep them regardless of what you say about them.
Since you flamed me in the other post for suggesting that some craft might be alien... what is your opinion of what the OP saw if its not a stealth craft?
What? Are you sure you it's me? In the other thread we were talking about the likelihood of widespread life because of the discovery of a few hundred gas giants. Have you confused me with somebody else?

And stop saying "no no no, you weren't trying to say 'x', you were trying to say 'y'", i know what i was trying to say, if you got a different interpretation of it, then that was unintended
No no no, I'm going to keep doing that.

Remember one of your first retorts was that the lights weren't visible because they were off. In truth, the lights weren't visible because they weren't there.

When you make a mistake, you should own up to it instead of wiggling out. If you had used at least modest diligence before you posted the first time, you wouldn't have had to go poll your housemate for support.

Just always tell the truth as best you know it, and don't fret so much. If you make a mistake, acknowledge it and move on. It's ok to be wrong.

Remember, there is a huge amount of nonsense around here and the only way to keep our sanity is to think for ourselves. If I see a guy going on about things that just aren't true, then I am likely going to say something.
 

Hoffmeister

There is no spoon
What? In this thread?

What? Are you sure you it's me? In the other thread we were talking about the likelihood of widespread life because of the discovery of a few hundred gas giants. Have you confused me with somebody else?
you see, you're so intent on ridiculing everything i say, you can't even remember why you were posting about my comments in the first place....
http://forum.theparacast.com/genera...f5/a-fan-of-the-paracast-and-a-skeptic-t2734/
See the second post where it all started (although it all really started in the thread about signs)

And why do you keep going on about how i was wrong... and factually incorrect.
as far as i am aware I was factually correct... the bomber DOES have three lights on it, and it DOES have a blinking light on the bottom.

Where was i incorrect?

Even if you don't think that these statements are correct, it doesnt mean that they arent, its just your opinion.
 


Top