What are the Triangles?

Chronology Problems

But even the aforementioned candidates don’t explain the triangle phenomenon. Even if something as exotic as the Black Manta is real, it is clear that this would only explain sightings since the 1990s.

Or would it? How far back could we push the technology and this aircraft? Could the Black Manta have been responsible for the Belgian sightings of 1989 and 1990? And even if that is so, what does one make of the Hudson Valley sightings, which are earlier still? At what point do we move from the improbable, to the implausible, to the ridiculous?

I wonder whether the TR-3A or TR-3B explain the following sighting:

On this occasion, a clear fall night in Hastings, Minnesota, multiple witnesses saw a triangular craft approach from the east at a high rate of speed. When it was nearly overhead at about 5,000 feet, it “stopped dead in its tracks.” The object had a reddish orange light at each of its corners; these lights sometimes turned greenish. It sat motionless and silent for half a minute, then made a slow 180 degree turn, “leaving a vapor trail.” It then sat motionless for a few seconds and took off at an amazing speed. It stopped dead at a point about 15 miles away from them. It then lifted straight up “at incredible speed” and was gone.

The object in question certainly seems to have had much in common with the Belgian triangle, except it was seen in mid-October of 1968. As far as I know, this report has not been investigated, but there are quite a few triangle reports on NUFORC that stem from the late 1960s. Most of these reports provide good detail and appear to be truthful. These are available for anyone to read.

At the NUFORC, you can read about 25 reasonably detailed reports of triangular UFOs that were seen from 1967 through 1973, and there are several that are even earlier. This must be the tip of the iceberg: the first of these accounts was posted only in 1998, when the world wide web finally became a convenient tool for these people. We will never know how many 1960s witnesses of triangular craft died before they had the opportunity to post their story, but I’m sure there were a few.

Indeed, British researcher Victor Kean, who started Project Triangle on the world wide web tracked many triangle reports in Britain that took place in the 1990s, but pointed out that his first reliable triangle report dates from September 8, 1960. This was a “triangular-shaped craft with three white apex lights and a red light underneath,” seen in Tyneside, Britain and two other locations that evening, all within a 10 mile radius and within 75 minutes of each other. Did someone invent flying triangles in the 1950s? [7]

If one feels that reports from that long ago are inherently unreliable and need to be discarded, what does one make of the large number of triangle reports from between 1973 and the early 1980s? That is, prior to the Hudson Valley wave?

Reports that go so far back pose a serious problem of explanation. There are several factors to consider. First is technology. Granted that the black world of the military has always been substantially ahead of most civilian technology, still, we can do a reality check by observing the development of leading edge aircraft during those years. For example, the first flight of the F-15 Eagle took place in July 1972. It was the first USAF fighter to have a thrust to weight ratio greater than 1:1, meaning it could accelerate going straight up. The first F-16 prototype flew at Edwards AFB in January 1974. The Rockwell B-1 bomber first flew in December 1974. The Apache helicopter prototype first flew in September 1975. These machines are all impressive, but none are anything like the reported triangles.

It is also important to realize that it was only by the mid-1970s that “fly-by-wire” (e.g. very advanced computer technology enabling an aircraft to make many adjustments per second) was becoming practical enough to allow for unconventional planforms such as the flying wing. Previously, the flying wing design (and by extension the triangle) had been inherently unstable.

Other problems arise when we look at the history of American defense spending. For instance, the USAF budget in 1980 was about $39 billion. Starting in 1981, with the advent of the Reagan presidency, it began a dramatic rise, peaking in 1985 at $99.4 billion. This is an extraordinary development, and while we can acknowledge that there was always a supply of secret money for special projects, we can also recognize that there was much more of it starting in the early 1980s. Presumably this translated into greater operational possibilities for leading edge technology. In other words, while it would still have been possible to fund expensive, secret, and exotic aircraft prior to 1980, it would have been easier to do this after 1980. [8]

Thus, when you examine the history of triangle sightings, track what is known of the development of advanced aircraft, and study the trends in defense spending, it becomes difficult to credit many of these reports as secret technology.

Difficult, but not perhaps impossible. After all, how many years ahead of our most advanced open and public technology are these triangles? It’s hard to be certain, but it doesn’t seem to be a stretch to anticipate similar capabilities in the public realm within the next twenty years.

Political Problems

But to acknowledge that some group in the secret caverns of the military-industrial complex made this type of breakthrough opens up a new series of questions.

Let us return to the Belgian case, for instance. Belgian Air Force Colonel De Brouwer speculated that if these objects were B-2 or F-117 stealth aircraft (the only known American aircraft that might remotely fit the description), then the USAF had made no requests for this type of mission, as it would be required to do. He also added the obvious fact that the triangles did not “in any way” match the characteristics of either U.S. aircraft.

Still, the Belgian government asked the U.S. government whether or not, in effect, these triangles were American. The U.S. Air Force informed the Belgian Air Force and Ministry of Defense that “no USAF stealth aircraft were operating” during the period in question. Now, this could be seen as merely a carefully worded statement. No “stealth” aircraft — might this allow the overflight of an aircraft that is not, technically speaking, stealth? After all, the triangle over Belgium was tracked at least some of the time on radar. As far as this statement is concerned, it could simply mean that a non-stealth but highly advanced U.S. aircraft was responsible. [9]

If so, then we have a disturbing conclusion regarding how the U.S. Air Force treats its NATO allies. With the advent of Gulf War II, this may not surprise too many people. But in 1990, there was still a Soviet Union, and the vestige of a cold war. At the least, it seems neither polite nor intelligent to treat your NATO allies in such a manner.

Nevertheless, it strains credulity to see this as American technology. Then again, the entire UFO phenomenon strains credulity. That is, until you go through report after impossible report, recognizing that the impossible is here and living quite well in this demented world of ours, thank you very much.

The NIDS Hypothesis – Big Black Deltas

For now, that will have to do regarding the chronological problems posed by the triangles. There are still a few possibilities to consider. The National Institute for Discovery Science (NIDS), based in Las Vegas, Nevada, has recently been looking into the matter of what it has termed Big Black Deltas (BBDs). These are essentially the large triangles. [10]

In 2002 an aircraft researcher submitted a paper to NIDS on the condition that it be published anonymously (“Big Black Deltas (BBDs): DoD, Not ET”). He argued that these objects are lighter-than-air (LTA) craft, or rigid dirigibles, most likely powered by “electrokinetic” drive, operated by the U.S. military. In other words, U.S. Defense Department airships that serve as large transport vessels, able to carry huge payloads at high or low altitudes, at speeds several times faster than surface ships. The author of the paper theorized that they have existed since the early to mid-1980s.

He theorized that these objects are quiet because LTA vehicles can make use of the “unconventional” electrokinetic system. They would need no propellers or jets, instead using aerostatic, lift gas, like a balloon. All you might hear is a slight humming from high voltage control equipment and an occasional coronal discharge in the older BBDs.

The NIDS author also discussed why the BBDs can accelerate so quickly. I have to confess that my science breaks down at this point, but the explanation is not especially detailed, either. The author argued that the LTA would not require a power supply, as its energy source could be fed remotely by a “ground based power system sending power to the electrokinetic platform by either a tether wire or by microwave link.” The maximum transmission distance would be about 62 miles. The thrust to mass ratio of such a craft would be far superior to that of a jet fighter, “between 1.7 to 1 up to 3 to 1 if lightly loaded,” which would enable it to accelerate very quickly, including up.

The author discussed other features of the BBDs, such as the ability to turn without banking or its occasionally intense lights. He concluded that “with a number of military mission profiles for such a craft and the technologies to build it having been well developed for nearly a century would any defense department NOT build it?”

This hypothesis seems primarily designed to address the Millstadt, Illinois sighting of early 2000. As a result, we are obliged to ask, if this object was ours, where was the microwave transmitter? This object surely was not tethered, and its acceleration wasn’t just high, it was very, very high. Not everyone believes the power source concept described in this anonymous paper is valid. One of my correspondents pointed out to me that while beamed microwave power has been done, it requires a line of sight and what is called rectenna, an array of dipoles which is dangerous to anything that gets in its path, such as birds. I am not aware, for instance, of reports of dead birds accompanying sightings of BBDs. Finally, it doesn’t help that this paper is from an anonymous source. While the people at NIDS know who this author is, it would be nice if the rest of us get the opportunity to learn this person’s identity and credentials (although one writer has assured me privately that the author possesses substantial qualifications).