On 10/3/04, Chant wrote:
>So what's your take on all these triangles? Do you think
>they're Keel/Vallee-ish...
I would suggest that Keel's writings are regarded as
absolute fiction.
Although I have good reason to urge such caution, I can't
reveal why as it would be breaching a confidence.
Valee, in my opinion, proposes an overly complex
hypothesis to explain 'UFOs' and associated, diverse,
facets.
Some might conclude that his philosophy requires a
significantly more critical appraisal of the core
evidence.
>Do they have any connection to abductions (as abductees
>usually describe round/elliptical objects and round
>rooms)?
I'm not aware of any tangible evidence which lends
scientific credibility to hypnotised tales of being
abducted by ETs.
>...or nuts and bolts craft?
If they actually are, then we would naturally expect the
answer is, yet to be unveiled, top-secret aircraft.
The paradox is why that's arguably the most illogical
explanation.
As I know from experience, if this topic is discussed
with people who have an interest in, and extensive
knowledge of, military aviation, even those especially
keen on 'black projects' [super-secret developments],
it's generally deemed to be 'UFO stuff' and simply not
welcome.
That's quite understandable; why would any clandestine
aircraft risk exposure by flying at incredibly low
altitude over populated areas, let alone 'hovering'
around an urban environment?
>Are there any patterns to these sightings/witnesses?
As previously highlighted, there are notable
consistencies in both descriptions of 'triangular UFOs'
and particularly their behavioural characteristics.
However, there are also discrepancies and one difficulty
is that so many reports are insufficiently detailed.
Rarely, are they subsequently investigated and witnesses
asked to thoroughly document recalled observations.
On the occasions I have been able to, the results were
intriguing, if not equally puzzling.
>I wasn't particularly interested in triangles as I
>thought they were mis-identified Stealth craft...
No comparison in terms of the inherently reported silent,
slow moving, hovering, 'tree top level altitude', ect,
attributes.
On 10/3/04, sudi also wrote:
>The craft was simply too big and too silent and too low-
>flying to operate in any aerodynamic terms that I, as a
>layperson, can understand.
>
>The only thing that could work that way would be a
>dirigible. But why would the Federal Aviation
>Administration let anything that size fly that low?
Been there, had that discussion with aviation enthusiasts
and all agreed it's comprehensibly untenable.
Besides, many analogous accounts are from the U.K.,
Belgium, Scandinavia and even Japan.
Again, I have to note they are anecdotal, with a scarcity
of accompanying photographic or video evidence [debatably
not unexpected if reports predominately occur late at
night].
>I simply have no good conjectures about the lack of
>other witnesses.
The absence of corroborative witnesses isn't uncommon and
your overall reply is much appreciated.
Steve Johnson is an acquaintance whose artwork has
featured on the covers of novels by foremost science-
fiction authors.
Consider:
http://www.orionworks.com/artgal/svj/gallery_ufos_f.htm
Specifically therein:
'May Your Encounters Be Interesting'
Steve enlightens:
"Artist's interpretation of a black triangular shaped
Unidentified Flying Object witnessed on November 22,
1985, by a Wisconsin state employee. He observed the
object glide slowly, too slow to be flying
aerodynamically, as it crossed Highway CV, located
approximately 15 miles NW of Madison, Wisconsin. The
sighting occurred around 5:00 P.M., dusk. The object was
later estimated to have been about 40 feet across,
perhaps wider, and possibly 90 feet in length. The UFO
silently passed a few feet above a row of power lines
running parallel to the highway. The witness recalled
that the underside of the craft reminded him of "the back
of a refrigerator" ...like a collection of condensation
pipes that ran back and forth from tip to base. After
passing directly above the observer's car, the black
object suddenly accelerated into the evening sky at a
tremendous speed. Within seconds it disappeared. The
observer speculated that if he had been on board the
craft during its abrupt acceleration he would have been
squashed "flatter than a pancake." The object remained
silent during the entire observation.
[END]
"...He observed the object glide slowly, too slow to be
flying aerodynamically... The object remained silent
during the entire observation"...
You noted: "...The craft was simply too big and too
silent and too low-flying to operate in any aerodynamic
terms that I, as a layperson, can understand"...
This painting was actually commissioned by the claimed
witness, who wished to remain anonymous. At my request,
Steve obligingly put me in touch with his client, who
clarified that he held a named, senior position within
the local 'medical health profession', thus resultant
concerns about publicity.
I have several other high-quality witness sketches and
will try to make these available on-line.
James Easton.
