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

Why Do UFOs Have Lights?

Other black projects like the SR71 and the F117 were eventually revealed to the wider world, but not the triangle.
Click to expand...
Well that does suggest something, but I'm not quite sure what. Either the triangles are hopelessly inadequate as weapons of war, which is why they have never been used in Afganistan or Iraq, or they don't exist.

I'd put my money on the latter, but it would be interesting to be proved wrong.
 
Either the triangles are hopelessly inadequate as weapons of war,
Click to expand...

Good point, could be complete lemons the Pentagon can't bring itself to cancel now so much has been spent .

which is why they have never been used in Afganistan or Iraq
Click to expand...

Unless they have been using them, but at night with the lights off so nobody noticed them.

or they don't exist.
Click to expand...

In which case it's darned clever the way they get all those people to see them, and get all those triangular not-really-there thingies to appear in all those photos. now that really is ufologist bamboozling! :p
 
Ducado said:
They have lights because we expect them to have lights!
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's the same reason so many craft are happened upon by bumpkins in the middle of nowhere, "surprising" beings who are apparently doing repairs, but then when they "realise" they have been spotted, jump into the ship and zoom off. They come 10 squillion miles across the galaxy without a problem, then when they need to pump their space tyres up and fill the screen washer bottle, Bubba the farmer manages to surprise them. Hmmm, how convenient, almost like they are teasing us.

Never mind the things with strange lights that people are seemingly catching tantalising glimpses of, it's the big things without lights just sitting there in plain view that are the real prize...

The lit ones are decoys, I tells ya!
 
interesting UFO physics-based page

sample

Summary: If we are to explain UFOs in terms of physics we understand to some degree, yet still conform to witness observations, it seems essential to assume UFOs are capable of generating artificial gravity fields (in GR terms, to manipulate the curvature of the fabric of space-time), much as we produce magnetism with electric currents. An approximation -probably oversimplified- of overall UFO behaviour is via accepting such a (hypothetical, or at least not known to us) gravity-like repulsive "force-field". The glow / luminescence in various colours around the UFO (apparently shape depends on UFO's shape as well as its current maneuver, so the UFO's outline as seen by external observer can change), is thought to be due to ionization of surrounding air (atmosphere around the UFO "lights up", much like what happens in neon-lamps), hereafter referred to as "UFO plasma sheath". Brightness/color changes of the "UFO plasma sheath" seem to be related with thrust/acceleration. The air ionization seems to be caused by the EM radiation emitted by the UFO, and is thought to be a secondary effect of the propulsion system. This includes UV (suggested by many cases of sunburn-like effects and eye and skin irritation) and soft X-rays (suggested by "burn ring" traces on ground where UFOs landed). Considering the difficulty of creating plasma in normal atmospheric conditions, in combination with other observations, like the luminosity of submarine UFOs, the sudden appearance of condensation / mist when starting up in high humidity conditions and noise patterns, it all suggests an envelope of lower atmospheric density near the UFO's surface. A near vacuum, i.e. the air/water is "pushed away" from the skin of the craft (confirmed by observations when UFOs rise from water), which minimizes friction and heating issues. Plasmas can interact strongly with electromagnetic radiation, "Plasma Stealth" is a proposed process that uses ionized gas (plasma) to reduce the radar cross section (RCS) of an aircraft. This may explain why sometimes UFOs are seen visually, but not tracked on radar. Often UFOs have a very strong magnetic field. Also, in several cases, light (e.g. from car headlights or beaming spotlights) is reported to "bend" in front of the UFO, an effect which some suggest is related with the most controversial aspect of UFO reports: the apparent ability to disappear / "blink out" or seem to "implode" (diminish in angular size) [miniature-scale "gravitational lensing"-type phenomenon?]. Physiological effects on humans include: sunburn-type effect and eye irritation, extreme dryness of the nasal area and of the throat, color changes in vision, extreme headaches and a heating/burning sensation. Witnesses and animals have become sick and even died, with symptoms similar to radiation poisoning, after close approach to a UFO.
Click to expand...

http://www.hyper.net/ufo/physics.html

lights on UFO are probably related to propulsion system (assuming reports etc reliable :) )
 
if the triangles are military tech id say there hasnt been a "good enough" war to warrant there use
that is no disrespect to iraq but i dont think they were a match for americas conventional weapons
they are most likly the sr-71s,which in its day was described as a ufo, replacement
 
the fly day and night but are not seen during day as you are pointing out...

TinFinger_ said:
i used to think it was odd that they chose to fly at night when they are most visible
Click to expand...
 
This just placed in the online Huffington Post. Makes mention of the same thing I asked at the beginning about why these things need lights.

http://huff.to/mWXQrr
 
Bigfoot73 said:
eburacum said:
or they don't exist.
Click to expand...

In which case it's darned clever the way they get all those people to see them, and get all those triangular not-really-there thingies to appear in all those photos.
Click to expand...
Most triangle reports these days are caused by chinese lanterns, as are most of the photos. Apart from the Belgian photo (almost certainly a fake) which photos do you find particularly convincing?
 
Most triangle reports these days are caused by chinese lanterns,
Click to expand...

Oh really? Chinese lanterns go whizzing round at great speed in perfect triangular formation, do they?
In daylight too?
Somehow managing to look like large black triangles instead of three sky lanterns?
With jets or helicopters pursuing them?

which photos do you find particularly convincing?
Click to expand...

It's not just photos, there are videos too, and all the witness reports which are not accompanied by photos.
Why do you find it so hard to conceive that the American military aviation industry can build something triangular which hovers?
 
Bigfoot73 said:
Most triangle reports these days are caused by chinese lanterns,
Click to expand...

Oh really? Chinese lanterns go whizzing round at great speed in perfect triangular formation, do they?
Click to expand...
Any formation of three lights is a perfect triangle. Even when they are in a straight line- then they could be said to be a triangle seen edge-on.
In daylight too?
Click to expand...
Any particular sightings in daylight that you find convincing? Not the Stephenville sightings, perhaps? A very good critical examination of the Stephenville sightings here
http://home.comcast.net/~tprinty/UFO/svilletx.htm
Somehow managing to look like large black triangles instead of three sky lanterns?
Click to expand...
As I've remarked before, three unconnected lights can easily be mistaken for a single object.


With jets or helicopters pursuing them?
Click to expand...
See the Stephenville incident.

eburacum45 said:
which photos do you find particularly convincing?
Click to expand...
bigfoot said:
It's not just photos, there are videos too, and all the witness reports which are not accompanied by photos.Why do you find it so hard to conceive that the American military aviation industry can build something triangular which hovers?
Click to expand...
See the specifications for the P-791.
Critics of the hybrid approach have labeled it as being the "worst of both worlds" in that such craft require a runway for take-off and landing, are difficult to control and protect on the ground, and have relatively poor aerodynamic performance.
Click to expand...
Craft of this kind are flying donkeys; they are too slow to be 'pursued' by jets, and any helicopter flying too near to one would swamp it with its wash or run the risk of colliding with the erratic creatures.
 
Any formation of three lights is a perfect triangle. Even when they are in a straight line- then they could be said to be a triangle seen edge-on.
Click to expand...

Yes and any formation of four lights is a tetrahedron, five lights a pentangle and so on. Nearly all triangle sightings involve perfect equilateral triangles not slowly rising from the vicinity of outdoor social gatherings and not fading out one by one.
I wasn't aware that the Stephenville sightings were of triangles, and never found it convincing anyway.

The P791 might account for some 'cigar' UFO sightings, but it's got turbo-prop engines for pity's sake, and doesn't look in any way like a triangle. Or Chinese lanterns.
 
If the flying triangles are secret military craft, but not hybrid blimps, what exactly do you suppose keeps them up in the air and/or propels them through the sky?

Remember that tales of antigravity, ion- and magnetically- driven craft in the atmosphere are bad science fiction. All of these effects have a thrust-to-weight ratio less than one, so they couldn't get off the ground in reality.
 
If the flying triangles are secret military craft, but not hybrid blimps, what exactly do you suppose keeps them up in the air and/or propels them through the sky?
Click to expand...

No idea. the early, Belgian sighting-vintage descriptions mentioned very noisy engines leaving a 'doughnuts -on-a-rope' exhaust trail, but more recent accounts make no mention of either exhaust trails or noise.
Could be an entirely different propulsion system in the same airframe. Whatever it is the US government has been successful in keeping it secret, and just because I do not wish to speculate about it doesn't mean they do not exist.
 
If such a propulsion system (which defies all known physical laws) did exist, and the US military did have it, they would surely have used it by now.

Instead they are using Predator drones which use comparatively conventional technology for their drive systems, but very advanced and expensive information tech to control them.

There would be no reason to spend billions of dollars on Predators if magic flying triangles were a useful reality; I suspect very strongly for this reason that there is no magic technology and flying triangles are a myth.
 
So , Predator drones exist, and
you don't know what powers the triangles, therefore triangles don't exist.

Brilliant.
 
Have you really not understood what Eburacum was trying to explain ?
 
I was only trying to explain my suspicions.

It may be the case that suddenly we will be treated to the revelation that the US has magic flying technology, and after that they will presumably rule the skies; but until that time I will reserve my doubts.
 
Bigfoot73 said:
No idea. the early, Belgian sighting-vintage descriptions mentioned very noisy engines leaving a 'doughnuts -on-a-rope' exhaust trail, but more recent accounts make no mention of either exhaust trails or noise.
Could be an entirely different propulsion system in the same airframe. Whatever it is the US government has been successful in keeping it secret, and just because I do not wish to speculate about it doesn't mean they do not exist.
Click to expand...

The 'doughnuts -on-a-rope' exhaust trail may be evidence of a pulse-detonation wave engine - which is good for high speed reconaissance aircraft, but not good for others. It seems unlikely that the triangles - if they actually exist - are a reconaissance platform for low-level work. This could be done with much smaller, more innocuous drones - and the US already operates very capable aircraft which carry out such tasks (and is continuing to invest in them). This would suggest that the imagined role for the traingles is defunct, and maybe alos that people are depserately trying to tack on 'realistic' roles to something which may not exist, let alone be part of America's military capability.
 
Well, I've seen one up fairly close for a prolonged period, that had eighteen lights on it altogether and though it was actually a hexagagonal it appeared triangular because every other side was so short in comparison to the proceeding one.

I spent ages trying to turn it into being the helicopter I was expecting to see, but no luck.

I don't think for a second that it was anything from anywhere else, and as there was no detail on it, except for the lights, and despite it's agility, I can really only think of it being some sort of balloon.
 
I don't think for a second that it was anything from anywhere else, and as there was no detail on it, except for the lights, and despite it's agility, I can really only think of it being some sort of balloon.
Click to expand...

That's quite a sighting! It may well have been a balloon, the V-shaped craft are widely thought to be balloons.

This would suggest that the imagined role for the traingles is defunct
Click to expand...

Well it is only an imagined role anyway, but if the Pentagon have got a large craft that can hover I suspect it is profligate enough to keep it flying with little justification. The P791 is virtually useless, but still flying. The B1 and B2 bombers are still flying although there are very few of either and they are very expensive to operate. Same with the Osprey, the plane that tilts it's engines so it can hover - very expensive, not many in service, but not embarrassingly scrapped as a failure. The Pentagon inventory is full of such projects.
Perhaps the triangles are some sort of balloon too. The hexagon was featureless and so are the triangles, maybe there is next to nothing in them apart from the buoyancy equipment, the propulsion ( whatever that is) and possibly remote control technology. Possibly, if that's all there is in them, they are not so costly after all.

Then there are the rectangles. Huge things, about 500 feet long. Sightings usually last a minute or two at most, and I would suggest this is due to them being no more than a foot or two thick - once edge-on to the witness they are practically invisible. Probably balloons too, with some computerised warping mechanism to give them lift and manouevrability and small quiet engines. What on earth their conventional military role would be I really don't know - Precipitation Interdiction Denial over Strategic Pentagon Staff Putting Greens maybe.
 
Bigfoot73 said:
Well it is only an imagined role anyway, but if the Pentagon have got a large craft that can hover I suspect it is profligate enough to keep it flying with little justification. The P791 is virtually useless, but still flying. The B1 and B2 bombers are still flying although there are very few of either and they are very expensive to operate. Same with the Osprey, the plane that tilts it's engines so it can hover - very expensive, not many in service, but not embarrassingly scrapped as a failure.
Click to expand...

Then again, they were carry over projects from the Cold War, and the P791 is an experimental project. So either the triangles are part of the former, or part of some sort of rather pointless experiment. After all, they're pretty visible, makes themselves quite obvious, and aren't IIRC invisible to radar. That doesn't really scream 'practical military experiment'. The problem there seems to be one of utility - the B1, B2, Osprey etc at least had some role to fill, aside whether they were successful at fulfilling that role or not.
 
After all, they're pretty visible, makes themselves quite obvious, and aren't IIRC invisible to radar. That doesn't really scream 'practical military experiment'.
Click to expand...

Yes they do make themselves obvious and go out of their way to be seen, so maybe that actually is related to their purpose. They have been around since the 80s with no public acknowledgment from the Pentagon, so there must be something useful about them, even if it is not immediately apparent to us.

and aren't IIRC invisible to radar.
Click to expand...

Surely that is the point of their triangular shape, just as with the F117 having a triangular leading profile, and the F117 is indeed almost invisible to radar.
 
oldrover said:
Well, I've seen one up fairly close for a prolonged period, that had eighteen lights on it altogether and though it was actually a hexagagonal it appeared triangular because every other side was so short in comparison to the proceeding one.

I spent ages trying to turn it into being the helicopter I was expecting to see, but no luck.

I don't think for a second that it was anything from anywhere else, and as there was no detail on it, except for the lights, and despite it's agility, I can really only think of it being some sort of balloon.
Click to expand...
That's a very interesting comment (bolded). I've had that experience many times, of trying to identify a phenomenon in the sky, sorting through different possible explanations until one fits. There may come a time when I can't settle upon an explanation, perhaps because of insufficient data or insufficient time; that would certainly constitute a UFO sighting (or to be more accurate an 'unidentified aerial phenonenon') but that doesn't mean that it is confirmed as either an 'alien' or a 'secret black project'.

I stand by my earlier assertion that most current sightings of triangles and other shapes are caused by chinese lanterns, especially in the UK; but other mundane causes are also likely, such as planes flying in formation or triangular formations of satellites (the well-known NOSS Triads).

But some detailed, close-up sightings may be caused by exotic craft built by hobbyists, possibly with the deliberate intention of hoaxing onlookers.
Exotic, hobby-built craft come in all shapes and sizes these days - see this page for a few really wierd hobbyist planes and kites
http://www.crazyplanes.de/

I'd expect a deliberate hoax by amateurs would be more likely to have lights on the outside than a true secret project.
 
When triangles allegedly appeared over Belgium, Belgian Air Force jets apparently managed to lock their radars onto them. If any of this is true, then that shows that the triangles aren't stealthy.
 
Here's Tim Printy's site about the Belgium case.
http://home.comcast.net/~tprinty/UFO/Belg.htm

I find it particularly significant that the jet pilots failed to see the 'objects' at all, so they may have been pursuing completely different phenomena to those seen by ground witnesses. In other words, it could easily be two (or more) unrelated phenomena, one causing a visual observation, and one causing radar detection, and the fact that they coincided is no more than a coincidence.

As I've pointed out many times before, coincidences happen, much more frequently than we might intuitively expect.
 
That's a very interesting comment (bolded). I've had that experience many times, of trying to identify a phenomenon in the sky, sorting through different possible explanations until one fits.
Click to expand...

The thing is it wasn't in the sky it was low below tree level, about parallel to me on the higher ground overlooking the area when I first saw it. Thinking about it it never did get very high at all.

But some detailed, close-up sightings may be caused by exotic craft built by hobbyists, possibly with the deliberate intention of hoaxing onlookers.
Click to expand...

I never thought of this, but I must say it does make a lot of sense. The trouble is it was so strange, it was a featureless car size chunky looking block shape, that flew with such agility I find it hard to rationalise.
 
Just read the Belgian site - the three lights and one red one in the middle is the same configuration as is reported nowadays. Perhaps the radar signature was the result of radar spoofing, tweaking radar technology to produce false images. In "Mirage Men" Mark Pilkington identifies spoofing as the cause of the 1952 Washington sightings wave.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top