• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Daytime Flying Triangle Over London, Late 1970s

markrkingston1

Ephemeral Spectre
Joined
Aug 4, 2007
Messages
410
Location
London, England
Yup, another childhood sighting. Unlike my previous report, this one actually is a UFO[1] (in as much as it was a flying object and I could not identify it).

Background, location, and when:-
At some time in the 1970s (late 1970s or very early 1980s) I was out with my parents, visiting Hampstead Heath in north west London. I would have been aged maybe between 7 and 11.

We very often visited this park. On this occasion, we were there on a sunny day with some minor cloud cover. Unfortunately I cannot remember the exact time of year or the exact year. I can however, remember the exact location (not that it matters for this sighting): In the Golders Hill Park section of the Heath, close to the large old gates that exit onto the gravel road that runs across West Heath.

Details:-
I randomly looked up at the sky and saw what I can only call a flying triangle at what seemed to be high altitude.

My impression was that it seemed to be flying at fairly high altitude, probably greater than 10,000 feet but possibly as high as 20-30,000 feet. However, I fully understand that these kinds of estimates are very subjective since I did not know the real size of the object. I can only say that the shading of the object seemed similar to the pale, 'washed out' shading of an airliner seen with the naked eye at 20-30,000 feet, so I felt that what I was looking at had to be at reasonably high altitude (even if it was perhaps smaller than a commercial airliner and therefore at lower altitude than 20-30,000 feet).

Colour seemed to be 'washed out', pale grey overall.

As I recall, the object did not seem to be moving or was moving very slowly, slower than a normal airliner at 20-30,000 feet would be. There was no contrail.

The shape was of an isosceles triangle, with a shorter 'base' and two slightly longer sides. It wasn't far off being equilateral but there was definite elongation to make it isosceles.

Both my parents saw it when I pointed it out and I remember that we stood and stared and discussed it for a while. I can't remember whether it was eventually covered by clouds or otherwise moved out of sight but we eventually finished looking at it and carried on with our walk. There would have been time to take a photo of it but we had no camera.

At the time I remember suggesting that it could be a hang glider as the shape matched that of a hang glider. Back then, hang gliders usually seemed to use delta-shaped (i.e. isosceles triangle shape) wings[2]. Thus this object would have matched a hang glider at an altitude of perhaps about 10,000 feet, I think. However, hang gliding at very high altitude (for a hang glider) over north west London would be very, very unusual (especially in the 1970s, I think). We did not come to any better conclusion about what it could have been.

I should add that it could perhaps have been a kite, but it would have been at unusually high altitude for a kite and it would have been a large kite. We certainly couldn't see any string. I don't recall that the day was windy.

That's it. The whole thing is frustratingly prosaic and then anomalous at the same time. I really have no idea what we saw.




Footnotes:-
1: "UFO" has many connotations and implicit meanings to many people; many people often assume it means aliens. Perhaps, like the UK's MOD, we should standardise on "UAP" for unidentified aerial phenomena so as to avoid implicit assumptions.
2: From what from I see nowadays, modern hang gliders usually use a different shape of wing (more reminiscent of the B-2's wing), not delta/isosceles shape any more.
 
Last edited:
Yup, another childhood sighting. Unlike my previous report, this one actually is a UFO[1] (in as much as it was a flying object and I could not identify it).

Background, location, and when:-
At some time in the 1970s (late 1970s or very early 1980s) I was out with my parents, visiting Hampstead Heath in north west London. I would have been aged maybe between 7 and 11.

We very often visited this park. On this occasion, we were there on a sunny day with some minor cloud cover. Unfortunately I cannot remember the exact time of year or the exact year. I can however, remember the exact location (not that it matters for this sighting): In the Golders Hill Park section of the Heath, close to the large old gates that exit onto the gravel road that runs across West Heath.

Details:-
I randomly looked up at the sky and saw what I can only call a flying triangle at what seemed to be high altitude.

My impression was that it seemed to be flying at fairly high altitude, probably greater than 10,000 feet but possibly as high as 20-30,000 feet. However, I fully understand that these kinds of estimates are very subjective since I did not know the real size of the object. I can only say that the shading of the object seemed similar to the pale, 'washed out' shading of an airliner seen with the naked eye at 20-30,000 feet, so I felt that what I was looking at had to be at reasonably high altitude (even if was perhaps smaller than a commercial airliner and therefore at lower altitude than 20-30,000 feet).

Colour seemed to be 'washed out', pale grey overall.

As I recall, the object did not seem to be moving or was moving very slowly, slower than a normal airliner at 20-30,000 feet would be. There was no contrail.

The shape was of an isosceles triangle, with a shorter 'base' and two slightly longer sides. It wasn't far of being equilateral but there was definite elongation to make it isosceles.

Both my parents saw it when I pointed it out and I remember that we stood and stared and discussed it for a while. I can't remember whether it was eventually covered by clouds or otherwise moved out of sight but we eventually finished looking at it and carried on with our walk. There would have been time to take a photo of it but we had no camera.

At the time I remember suggesting that it could be a hang glider as the shape matched that of a hang glider. Back then, hang gliders usually seemed to use delta-shaped (i.e. isosceles triangle shape) wings[2]. Thus this object would have matched a hang glider at an altitude of perhaps about 10,000 feet, I think. However, hang gliding at very high altitude (for a hang glider) over north west London would be very, very unusual (especially in the 1970s, I think). We did not come to any better conclusion about what it could have been.

I should add that it could perhaps have been a kite, but it would have been at unusually high altitude for a kite and it would have been a large kite. We certainly couldn't see any string. I don't recall that the day was windy.

That's it. The whole thing is frustratingly prosaic and then anomalous at the same time. I really have no idea what we saw.




Footnotes:-
1: "UFO" has many connotations and implicit meanings to many people; many people often assume it means aliens. Perhaps, like the UK's MOD, we should standardise on "UAP" for unidentified aerial phenomena so as to avoid implicit assumptions.
2: From from I see nowadays, modern hang gliders usually use a different shape of wing (more reminiscent of the B-2's wing), not delta/isosceles shape any more.
Vulcan bomber?
vulcan.jpg
 
Vulcan bomber?

Good thought but no, I had seen high altitude Vulcans and they were different. The thing I saw from the park was a somewhat more elongated triangle than a Vulcan's plan form and had no visible nose section (the nose section is visible on a Vulcan, even at high altitude, or at least it was to my young eyes).

Can you see this image?
86eb0f0834a32965d20b95b4fec19cab


The image above is a simulation (not in fact a genuine picture as far as I know) of the famous Chris Gibson sighting of the (alleged) Aurora hypersonic aircraft[1].

What I saw was very similar indeed to this in terms of plan form, perhaps slightly more elongated. My sighting was from directly below and so, if my object did have winglets as in the simulated picture above, then I could not see them. All I saw was the isosceles triangle plan form.

For the avoidance of doubt, I do not claim that what I saw was the Aurora since (a) what I saw seemed either to not be moving or to be moving very slowly, unlike the hypersonic-capable Aurora and (b) my sighting was almost certainly at least 10 years too early for it to be an Aurora or similar aircraft.



Footnote:-
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurora_(aircraft)
 
I don't really have much to add other than to say a very interesting story, especially because it took place back then rather than recently - I say this because I have watched a couple of YouTube videos in recent weeks regarding triangles in the sky and it interests me that if there is something to these, and if what you saw was the same thing (I don't know if it was!) then this means the 'sky triangle' phenomena is not just a recent thing.

(If that all makes sense :) )

Here's a few videos - now I'm not claiming I definitely believe these are unexplained, I'm still on the fence about them, they could be fake, I dunno - but some of them are interesting:


(Was what you saw, anything like the above?)





And finally for something different... a cube in the sky :)

 
I don't really have much to add other than to say a very interesting story, especially because it took place back then rather than recently - I say this because I have watched a couple of YouTube videos in recent weeks regarding triangles in the sky and it interests me that if there is something to these, and if what you saw was the same thing (I don't know if it was!) then this means the 'sky triangle' phenomena is not just a recent thing.

I think that flying triangles definitely are a thing or, to be more precise, things. I have no idea where my sighting fits into the phenomenon (if at all) but it seems to me that there could be multiple flying triangle phenomena going on concurrently in the modern era: Very large hybrid aerodynamic/light than air flying triangles of Earthly origin (stealthy, either load-carrying and/or for surveillance), very advanced propulsion testbeds of Earthly origin, possible naturally occurring plasma phenomena, and who knows what else (that may or may not be of Earthly origin).

As you say, although flying triangles (with seemingly differing physical characteristics) are a relatively modern phenomenon, there is some evidence that they have been around for much longer.

Here's a few videos - now I'm not claiming I definitely believe these are unexplained, I'm still on the fence about them, they could be fake, I dunno - but some of them are interesting:

They are certainly interesting. Indeed, they could be fake or they could be real. It's virtually impossible to tell for sure nowadays. And, if real, it still doesn't clearly tell us what we're looking at.


(Was what you saw, anything like the above?)

Very similar. BUT, what I saw differed slightly:
(1) As I recall, what I saw was more isosceles//elongated than this triangle seems to be.
(2) What I saw was seemingly at high altitude. It was pretty much the same apparent size as an airliner would be when flying at 30,000 feet or so.
(3) The colour of what I saw was pale, 'washed out' grey, much the same appearance as an airliner at 30,000 feet. From this, it would be very difficult to say what its colour would be if seen much closer.
 
For what it is worth...

The object I saw was somewhat similar to this triangle recently seen "near Amsterdam in Wormeveer, Netherlands".

N.B. I can't get the video to play so I can only see a still image. According to my memory, what I saw was not as bright and slightly more isosceles than the triangle in the still image here.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/video/wat...sky-over-amsterdam/vi-BBSISEG?ocid=spartandhp
 
Courtesy of Steve Johnson:

http://svjart.orionworks.com/category-ufos.htm

154844282777365.jpg


I know Steve and asked him about this painting.

It was actually commissioned by someone who wanted to illustrate his 'UFO' encounter.

Steve explained that said guy never went public with claims of the incident, as he held a senior public position - which Steve confided and indeed, you could then quite understand that reasoning.

...Up for a significant, public service, promotion interview - you are by far the obvious, chosen candidate.

'Anything else you would like to add before the board makes its final decision?'

'Nothing at all... except... and you're not going to believe this! I had a close encounter with a UFO the other night!'...


'Can you send in the next candidate, please'...
 
A Saab Draken could look very strange indeed from certain angles.

Indeed it could, but it most certainly wasn't a Draken. Nor a Mirage.

concorde ?

No. Not right for that. I was very familiar with Concorde.

It is also worth pointing out that the object we saw was either not moving or was moving very slowly. Annoyingly I do not recall us waiting to see what happened to it.
 
concorde ? location time and shape match ...

I have already replied about Concorde above.

Concorde was not a match for what we saw in a number of respects. Concorde's shape (when seen at either high altitude or low altitude) was far more slender than what we saw and Concorde is also very noticeably not quite a pure delta/triangle shape (even when seen at high altitude).

Coal's suggestion above (#2) of it being a Vulcan was closer to what we saw but, as per my reply to that message, it was also not a Vulcan.

Additionally, let me point out again that we saw was either not moving or was not moving very slowly.
 
...For the future avoidance of doubt, my sighting was nothing like the painting above. ;)
...and therein lies the problem, Mark, I've thoroughly document similar over quite a period of time - detailed witness statements, illustrations, et al and there's barely two similar.

More perplexing, la few years back, I analysed all 'triangular UFO' sightings from the MUFON, online, UFO reports.

Searching and duly recording any comparisons from circa 80-100 comparative reports... guess what... there were hardly any.

Which naturally leads us to an inevitable conclusion...

:dunno:
 
do you think you would have been able to positively identify at that age/altitude of craft/ambient conditions ... what do/did your parents reckon ?
 
What is the difference?

To give you a literal answer to your question, the difference between "not moving" and "moving very slowly" is that one is not moving and the other is in fact moving, but is doing so slowly. But I'm sure that's not what you really meant to ask. ;)

Did you mean to ask why I could not tell whether the object was either not moving or was moving very slowly? If so, it is because very slow movement when there are no nearby objects for comparison is virtually impossible to differentiate from non-movement.

Perhaps it would have been better for me to state it thus: "The object appeared to not be moving but could have been moving very slowly."

I can be sure that the object was not moving fast (i.e. at conventional aircraft speed) because it stayed seemingly static within our field of view for long enough to stand, point, look and discuss it. Any conventional aircraft at any conventional speed would have clearly and obviously moved across our field of view at comparatively rapid speed.
 
...and therein lies the problem, Mark, I've thoroughly document similar over quite a period of time - detailed witness statements, illustrations, et al and there's barely two similar.

More perplexing, la few years back, I analysed all 'triangular UFO' sightings from the MUFON, online, UFO reports.

Searching and duly recording any comparisons from circa 80-100 comparative reports... guess what... there were hardly any.

Which naturally leads us to an inevitable conclusion...

:dunno:

Yes, this sort of thing is very frustrating.

Excluding errors of observation for the sake of simplicity, it seems to me that there could be at least five main plausible explanations. These are just my personal and subjective favourites and I make no claim that they explain anything: Natural plasma/electromagnetic phenomena, man made plasma/electromagnetic phenomena, human exotic propulsion craft, alien exotic propulsion craft, human airship/hybrid air vehicles.

I have no idea which, if any, my sighting might have represented.
 
Additionally, let me point out again that we saw was either not moving or was not moving very slowly.
That's precisely one of any discernible characteristics. IIRC, when I wrote about this subject, the headline was not far off, 'Slow Moving or Stationary, Low Altitude, Triangular Shaped, Unidentified Aerial Objects'...
 
conventional aircraft at any conventional speed would have clearly and obviously moved across our field of view at comparatively rapid speed.
depends, the isosceles couldve been formed by the angle of the craft, which could have been ascending/descending
 
Did you read the original post?
yep ... i think a positive id wouldve been difficult at that time, so youre left with id-ing your recollection ... ref your parents, did they ever weigh in with an opinion subsequently, are they around to ask now ?
 
depends, the isosceles couldve been formed by the angle of the craft, which could have been ascending/descending

I can only say that would not have matched our sighting. It was definitely not noticeably moving in any horizontal vector (although, as stated, it could have been moving very slowly), whereas a normal aircraft directly overhead that was ascending or descending would have been clearly seen to move horizontally.
 
If it was moving slowly, then it was probably a microlight aircraft or glider of some sort. There were a few microlights in the early 70s, but none of them that I can find match your description. But there were hang-gliders around in those days; we had one in my student digs, but I don't know if it ever got used.
 

Ah, it's just that you asked a question that I had addressed in my original post.

... i think a positive id wouldve been difficult at that time, so youre left with id-ing your recollection

(a) I did in fact point out that positive identification was impossible at the time. Due to its lack of movement and its shape, the object we saw did not match anything that we could recognise. It was certainly not a conventional powered aircraft due to its lack of obvious movement. The closest conventional matches were a hang glider or kite, but both of these possibilities have difficulties (as I noted in the original message).

(b) I have not offered any subsequent identification[1]. I still know of no objects that fully match what we saw.

(c) I can only be certain of what it was NOT: It was not a Concorde, Vulcan, Draken, Mirage, or any other conventional aircraft. I can be certain of this contemporary non-identification due to both mismatches in shape (the shape we observed did not match any of those aircraft which were known to us at the time) and behaviour (it was not obviously moving, whereas any conventional aircraft would have been crossing our field of view at a noticeable speed, even if ascending or descending).

At the time, I was familiar with the shape of Concorde, Vulcans and Mirages and would have been able to recognise them when I saw them in the air (and, indeed, did in reality recognise Concordes and Vulcans when I saw them on various occasions in that timeframe at various altitudes).

. ref your parents, did they ever weigh in with an opinion subsequently, are they around to ask now ?

No, they had no better ideas. None of us could ever identify what we saw. My father is now dead and my mother cannot now recall the incident.


Footnote:-
1: I am aware of the risk of post facto identifying something from memory, thus causing one's memory to alter and conform to the newer identification. However, we were able to discount conventional aircraft at the time of the sighting (both due to the object's lack of apparent motion and due to the fact that its shape did not adequately match any aircraft we knew about then or since), meaning that post facto memory-alteration is not an issue here.
 
I'm afraid I can't place much faith in an eleven-year-old's estimate of height, let alone a seven-year old's. But the shape sounds very like a 70's hang-glider.
 
If it was moving slowly, then it was probably a microlight aircraft or glider of some sort.
There were a few microlights in the early 70s, but none of them that I can find match your description. But there were hang-gliders around in those days; we had one in my student digs, but I don't know if it ever got used.

As you will see if you read my original post, I actually suggested to my parents at the time of the sighting that it could have been a hang glider.

As I said in the original post in this thread:

At the time I remember suggesting that it could be a hang glider as the shape matched that of a hang glider. Back then, hang gliders usually seemed to use delta-shaped (i.e. isosceles triangle shape) wings. Thus this object would have matched a hang glider at an altitude of perhaps about 10,000 feet, I think. However, hang gliding at very high altitude (for a hang glider) over north west London would be very, very unusual (especially in the 1970s, I think). We did not come to any better conclusion about what it could have been.​

I think the same issues would apply to a microlight as to a hang glider, both then and now.

So I cannot agree that it "was probably a microlight aircraft or glider of some sort" (bold added by me). Whilst certainly not impossible, I think it would have been exceedingly unlikely for a hang glider or microlight to have been flying at high altitude (for a microlight or hang glider) over London back then.

If, however, you can find any records of high altitude flights by such aircraft (especially over London!) in that timeframe then I'd be very interested to know.
 
Last edited:
Gimme some time - couple of days - on this perpetually fascinating UFO tangent and I'll try to locate some profoundly relevant archive material.

This includes a first hand account from Chris Gibson, following a lengthy interview and which Chris permitted I could publish.
 
I'm afraid I can't place much faith in an eleven-year-old's estimate of height, let alone a seven-year old's. But the shape sounds very like a 70's hang-glider.

I'm afraid I can't place much faith in such generalisations. ;)

However, once again see my original post where I wrote:

However, I fully understand that these kinds of estimates are very subjective since I did not know the real size of the object. I can only say that the shading of the object seemed similar to the pale, 'washed out' shading of an airliner seen with the naked eye at 20-30,000 feet, so I felt that what I was looking at had to be at reasonably high altitude (even if it was perhaps smaller than a commercial airliner and therefore at lower altitude than 20-30,000 feet).​

My father and mother saw the same thing and were not able to come to any better identification. It was perplexing to all three of us.
 
Back
Top