What are the Triangles?

An article by Richard M. Dolan


copyright ©2003 by Richard M. Dolan
All rights reserved.

A Triangular Problem

Sightings of "impossible" craft in the sky are universal. They are also universally ignored. Ignored, at least, by the official channels and sources of power in our society.

This is nothing new -- students of the UFO reality have always known this. Nor is the blanket of denial and disinformation associated with this topic anything unique. I have howled into the wind about this many times, decrying the inability and unwillingness of our mainstream media to discuss an entire range of topics. Yes, this is old news.

As strange as UFOs are, I often think that the silence of official channels is more surreal than the objects themselves. How can it be possible that so many thousands (millions?) of witnesses continue to be ignored?

One subset of the phenomenon, however, has broken through to the mainstream. Perhaps we should say -- ahem -- the ‘fringes’ of the mainstream. These are the infamous triangular craft. America’s mainstream culture, ever rigid and narrow, yet acknowledges from time to time that such things exist. Frankly, it would be hard not to. The reports are simply too many and too clear.

They also come in constantly. Less than a month ago, as I write this, was an interesting -- yet typical -- report. Shortly after midnight on March 2, 2003, a security guard at a gated community in Dallas saw "a single solid black triangle, with no lights of any kind," traveling west for about 8 or 9 seconds. The object was completely silent, and seemed to float across the sky at about 1,200 feet. The witness watched the triangle disappear behind one of the homes, contacted the Dallas Police Department, and was told that no one else had reported the object. This report is available on the web at the National UFO Reporting Center (NUFORC). Indeed, the witness spoke with Peter Davenport, who runs the organization, and was found "to be quite sincere and credible." [1]

Computer rendering by witness of a Triangle encounter in Kingston, Ontario, in January 2003. Thanks to Peter Davenport of NUFORC and witness for permission.
Computer rendering by witness of a Triangle encounter in Kingston, Ontario, in January 2003.
Thanks to Peter Davenport of NUFORC and witness for permission.

Here is another recent report from NUFORC. On January 24, 2003, a man saw a triangular-shaped object while driving at night down a quiet Arkansas road. He slowed down, turned off his radio, and rolled down his car window. He wondered if this was a helicopter. But he heard no sound. Coming to a complete stop, he watched the object hover 10 feet above a telephone pole, and noticed that it had three lights (red, white, and blue), one on each corner. He saw the object for a total of four minutes, "and then it was gone."

Neither of these witnesses described the size of the craft they saw. In fact, the sizes of these triangles have ranged from small to immense. Most are slow-moving and low-flying; occasionally people describe them as boomerang-shaped instead of triangular. The fact that they fly so low, and so slowly, is a problem that demands an explanation, both scientifically and politically. Complicating the matter are the many witnesses who describe exceptional speed and maneuverability relating to these triangles, such as flat pivot turns or incredible acceleration. It is a tricky problem, indeed.

The famous Illinois "cop sighting" in early 2000 of a giant triangular object is the best known case of the flying triangles. In this instance, the object was substantially larger than a jumbo jet, flying at perhaps 500 feet altitude, either silent or extremely quiet, moving slowly, and edged with an array of blinding white lights. All this is certainly extraordinary. But what really makes this case difficult to explain is the object’s manner of acceleration. In the words of one officer, it was able to shoot away "in the blink of an eye" with "no sound whatsoever." One moment, it was a few hundred feet away; the next moment, several miles away. [2]

What does that?

If this were an isolated incident, one could write it off as a mistaken observation of some sort. But this is not isolated, and here the problem deepens. For an object possibly identical to this one was seen many times in the early 1980s in the Hudson Valley, just north of New York City. On December 31, 1982, people from several different locations reported such an object. This was no mere New Year’s Eve partying, either; the object was filmed with a movie camera. The object was huge, triangular, flew at less than 500 feet, had bright lights, made tight circles in the air, and at one point shone a beam of white light onto a highway. In July 1984, the same or a similar object invaded the air space of the Indian Point Nuclear Facility, disabling the electronic and communication systems while it hovered over a reactor. During the early 1980s, the number of witnesses to such events in the Hudson Valley numbered in the thousands. Indeed, on one occasion, video was shot of a sufficient quality that it was sent to the Jet Propulsion Lab in Pasadena. Conclusion: something real, all right, but not a conventional aircraft. [3]

Security guard drawing of the object that hovered over the Indian Point Nuclear Facility, July 1984.
Security guard drawing of the object that hovered over the Indian Point Nuclear Facility, July 1984.

Then we have the Belgian cases, which seem to have been part of series of sightings stretching from Britain to Russia from late 1989 to early 1990. On November 29, 1989, a dark triangular object, making a humming noise, hovered over a Belgian police car and shone a brilliant beam of light on it. Many people reported this object; it was seen throughout the winter, then most spectacularly on the night of March 30, 1990. That night, thousands of witnesses saw a low-flying triangular UFO (or UFOs) with bright lights flashing in the center. This object could fly as slow as 30 mph, but it accelerated to incredible speeds. Witnesses were adamant that no plane belonging to any air force could have caught this object. Indeed, that night the Belgian Air Force sent two F-16s to do exactly that. The triangles were captured on several NATO radar stations; the jet pilots could also track the objects on radar, and even see them – at times.

But the F-16s – the top interceptors in the world – were completely outclassed by the triangular craft. Not only could it accelerate at incredible speeds, not only could it stop on a dime, but it could change its altitude almost instantly. At one point, for example, radar installations and amazed witnesses observed the triangle to drop about 4,000 feet in one second. That’s nearly a mile.

Moreover, this object moved intelligently, at least in the opinion of the Belgian Air Force Chief of Operations, Colonel Wilfried De Brouwer, who stated "There was a logic in the movements of the UFO." Nick Pope, who soon after this manned the "UFO Desk" in Britain’s Ministry of Defense, had contacts within the Belgian government who "elicited the conclusion that a structured craft had flown over Belgium that night." They had no idea, they said, of what that object was. [4]

Like the other triangles people have seen, the Belgian object was real enough. The real question is, to whom did it belong?

Photograph of the triangular object over Belgium, April 1, 1990.
Photograph of the triangular object over Belgium, April 1, 1990.

Ours? Or Theirs?

Many people have suspected this to be a secret American project. Officially, however, there is no type of aircraft with a perfectly triangular planform. The B-2 stealth bomber is an angular and odd looking beast, but it’s not a triangle. Nor can it do what the triangles do.

There is good reason to believe that the U.S. has developed a triangle. In August 1989, A former Royal Observer Corps member was working on a North Sea gas rig about 60 miles off the Norfolk coast. This man, named Chris Gibson, has been described as one of the world’s experts in aircraft recognition, and competed in international recognition Tournaments where a long distance shot of an aircraft would be flashed on a screen for a fraction of a second. At the time of the sighting, he was writing an aircraft recognition manual.

What he saw that day was an matte black aircraft shaped in a perfect isosceles triangle, with the nose angle at 30 degrees, in a refueling operation with a KC-135. Two F-111 fighters accompanied the craft. The triangular craft was slightly bigger than an F-111. Aviation writer Bill Sweetman noted that "no aircraft other than a supersonic vehicle, or a test aircraft for such a vehicle, has ever been built or studied with such a planform."[5]

Generally, people have attributed this sighting to the fabled Aurora, the alleged successor to the world’s fastest "official" plane, the SR-71 Blackbird. Of course, the Aurora doesn’t officially exist but the rumor mill gives it dimensions that seem to be compatible with what Gibson saw.

But given that the Aurora (or the same aircraft under a different name) exists, it is unlikely that this is the craft that buzzed Belgium in 1989-1990, much less is responsible for the Hudson Valley sightings. The Aurora is said to be hypersonic, meaning that it is faster than Mach 5, and is rumored to move as fast as Mach 8. But, hovering? Changing altitude instantly? There are no accounts of Aurora -- none by aviation writers, anyway – that indicate it can do anything like that.

The Black Manta

There is an aircraft in the land of legends that comes closer to fitting the description of some of these triangle sightings. It is the Black Manta, TR-3, another aircraft that "doesn’t exist." All we have, apparently, is the rumor mill, which gives this object the ability to hover silently. There are said to be two very different versions, the TR-3A and the TR-3B. The first is supposed to be about 45 feet long and 15 feet high, with a 65 foot wingspan. The second is said to be a massive 600 feet across.

Bearing in mind that none of this can be confirmed, the most detailed information I could find on this elusive creature of the sky is that, among those who believe it exists, it is said to a tactical reconnaissance aircraft, first operational in the early 1990s. Funding and tasking come from the NRO, NSA, and CIA. The outer coating of the TR-3B is allegedly reactive to electrical radar stimulation and can change reflectiveness, radar absorptiveness, and color. It is therefore exceptionally stealthy. More than this, however, it is said to have indefinite loiter time at high altitudes (as high as 125,000 feet), and the ability to travel as fast as – strap yourself in – Mach 9.

Artist rendering of the TR-3A Black Manta
Artist rendering of the TR-3A Black Manta

By no means am I an expert on the technology involved here. Those who say they are tell us that the TR-3B has something called a Magnetic Field Disruptor, which is a circular, highly pressurized, mercury-based plasma filled ring surrounding a rotatable crew compartment. The plasma is accelerated to extreme speeds which is said to result in "gravity disruption" and can neutralize the effect of gravity on mass by as much as 89 percent. This is not exactly antigravity, which provides a repulsive force, but for all intents and purposes makes the vehicle extremely light, with obvious correlations in performance, including acceleration in all directions.

This, at least, is the claim from the website of Edgar Fouche. One scientist has told me that the technical details, such as the speed of rotation of plasma) are "not credible." While Fouche’s site provides an excellent overview of the Black Manta, much of the information derives from anonymous sources, and it is always possible that details can be wrong even while the big picture remains fundamentally sound. [6]

While recognizing that any discussion of the Black Manta is highly speculative, some of the claims regarding it at least come close to the performance characteristics of the triangular UFOs. Is the craft real? I have no idea. While a few aviation writers acknowledge the possibility that it’s real, no one can confirm it, and most appear doubtful. Indeed, there those who even doubt that there is such a plane as the Aurora.

For my part, I find it difficult to deny that the U.S. military has a flying triangle. Knowing the credentials of Chris Gibson, if he saw a matte black isosceles triangle being refueled by a KC-135, I am prepared to believe him. I am also prepared to accept that there are probably other deep-black aircraft out there. The U.S. government has a history of declassifying military technologies at its convenience. By the time the U-2 was public, its successor, the SR-71 Blackbird, was not long in following. We learned of the F-117A stealth fighter in 1988, for instance, only when it was decided to increase production substantially and that it would therefore be impossible to hide any longer.

Artist rendering of the Aurora aircraft.
Artist rendering of the Aurora aircraft.

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).

Reconstruction of UFO over Shiloh, Illinois, January 2000. Thanks to Darryl Barker.
Reconstruction of UFO over Shiloh, Illinois, January 2000. Thanks to Darryl Barker.

Police Report Sketch, January 2000, Officer Martin; Shiloh, Illinois Police Department
Police Report Sketch, January 2000, Officer Martin; Shiloh, Illinois Police Department

NIDS has also plotted several hundred sightings of the BBDs (all from the 1990s) on a map of the United States, trying to see a pattern. In addition to using its own substantial database, NIDS obtained two other substantial sources of data, from MUFON and UFO researcher Larry Hatch. NIDS suggested that many of the BBD sightings occurred along corridors between bases of the U.S. Air Mobility Command (AMC) and Air Force Material Command (AFMC) . These two commands control the logistics of American troop and equipment deployment. NIDS hypothesized, therefore, that the Air Force is flying these objects between AFMC and AMC bases. [11]

This may be just as NIDS suggests. But although it says the similarities among the various databases are "striking," I found the experience of reading these maps a little like deciphering a Rorschach test. There does seem to be a concentration of sightings along such "corridors," but I can’t help wondering if there is another explanation here, and that this is a case where one could find all sorts of patterns to fit other hypotheses.

NIDS did fine work and worded its conclusions carefully. It is to be commended for this. But it must be noted that (a) its study includes only reports from the 1990s (b) only includes reports of the large triangles and (c) is restricted geographically to the United States.

There are such things as rigid dirigibles. An inventor name Michael K. Walden demonstrated a fully solar-powered, remotely-controlled, LTA vehicle, to the U.S. Department of Defense and Department of Energy at Nellis AFB in 1977. They seemed to have been rather excited by this, but never picked up the contract. [12]

I have already said that the long history of triangle reports poses serious problems of explanation. But so does the geography. Researchers commonly write as though the triangles are a North American and Western European phenomenon. This seems to be true in the main, but I suspect it is mainly due to more active reporting in those areas. In any case, it is not entirely true. Russia, for example, has had many triangle reports, several that occurred during the Belgian flap.

An especially interesting one occurred near Moscow on March 12, 1990. Several groups of UFOs were seen, some of which were spheres and discs, and some of which appeared to be huge triangular-shaped craft. Many local people spent the night on their rooftops watching these silent objects dart through the sky. In fact, during the spring of 1990, it appears that Russia had more, and more spectacular, UFO cases than did Belgium. The CIA retained several accounts of this wave from the Soviet-Russian media, although CIA reports themselves, assuming they exist, have yet to be released.

Thus, while the NIDS explanation of Big Black Deltas may shed some light, the hypothesis is far from proved, and at best is only a partial solution to the mystery of the triangles. Are we to assume that some covert American group was flying triangles (along with other UFOs) throughout Russia during the decline phase of the Soviet Union?

A Shadow Government?

There is perhaps one last terrestrial explanation, but it isn’t a pretty one. Could there be an ultra-black group behind the triangles, one that is so far removed from ordinary channels that the American military establishment has lost control of it? Could such a secret group exist?

Our national security apparatus has many layers of classification (including above top secret) and extreme compartmentalization. There is no question that the American military possesses unacknowledged Special Access Programs (SAP) funded by countless billions of secret dollars. Congress provides no effective oversight of these programs, judging by the history of the few secret programs of which we know. A great deal can get swallowed up by our National Security State and we must recognize the possibility that the flying triangles are one of those things.

It is at this point that an analysis of the flying triangles merges with the UFO phenomenon itself. In the first place, the flight capabilities of the triangles appear to match those of the more traditional flying saucers. There are hundreds of known military encounters with UFOs. Most of these are cases do not show overt hostility, but neither are they especially congenial. Judging by the behaviors of both the American aircraft and of these objects, the UFOs do not appear to be under the command of the U.S. military. This can also be said of at least some of the triangles, such as the one that violated the air space over the Indian Point Nuclear Facility in 1984.

For many years people have been hanging around the outskirts of Area 51, watching all the fun things that fly around there. Bob Lazar and his friends were there in the late 1980s, filming bizarre craft that could hover and dart. In December 1990, Gary Schultz, a chemical physicist, was with a large group of people when they saw, in his words: "a huge, glowing saucer, which was pulsating a brilliant orange-red and flying slowly over the Jumbled Hills - and it was being followed by a military helicopter about a quarter mile behind." The object disappeared behind the hills and into the Nellis Air Force Range, while the helicopter eventually landed at a facility atop Bald Mountain.

There are many such accounts. Is this evidence that the U.S. military is testing field propulsion, e.g. antigravity, flying saucers? Possibly. We may have come very close to such a revelation in the very curious October 1, 1990 issue of Aviation Week & Space Technology, large portions of which concerned deep-black technology programs, cryptic references to not-fully-understood exotic technology, and reports of black quiet triangles.

Would the other shoe drop? Would someone seriously mention the "U" word? The magazine came perilously close to doing so. One wonders whether someone else urgently desired to hush all this up. It is worth mentioning that Phillip J. Klass, a long-time UFO debunker, was a leading figure with the publication. Neither the staff of AW&ST, nor those of Jane’s Defense Weekly, have followed up in a serious way on this.

Presumably they are still terrified of the UFO topic. Or perhaps there something more involved, a quid pro quo? Whatever the answer, they are the watchdogs that never barked.

Compare their silence to the fine work of journalist George Knapp. Here is a man who obtained many solid leads out of Area 51, several of which indicated efforts to understand and duplicate alien technology. He spoke to members of Congress who were blocked in their attempts to get answers. But no mainstream publication has followed up on his leads.

Conclusion

We are facing a situation in which we know that some triangles are ours (as the 1989 sighting by Chris Gibson demonstrates), some triangles are big, some are small, some do not appear to be "ours." If there is a single terrestrial explanation for this, it would have to be a shadow group, most likely among people deeply immersed in the world of black defense technology who developed their own agenda independent of any formally established government.

One person with whom I write, and whose judgement I have come to trust, tells me he is "ninety-five percent" sure that somewhere along the line the U.S. military and scientific minds in the secret world have indeed developed operational field propulsion. In other words, defeated the problem of gravity and are thus responsible for at least many of the triangles. Another person, someone in whom I place high esteem and credibility, tells me he thinks it’s unlikely this is so.

While this is difficult to sort out, I am still left with a nagging question: if the American National Security State somewhere along the line invented some version of the Flying Triangle, why is there no evidence that it has ever been used in our recent wars? Would it not have been useful during the Gulf War of 1991? Or now?

There are, of course, answers to this question. It may have been used secretly and no one has found out. Or, the military planners may have believed that it was unnecessary for victory and hence still more valuable as something secret. Still, it seems odd.

I think it’s likely that there are secret, terrestrial, triangles out there. But it also looks to me that some, and perhaps most, of the triangles are "not ours," that is, alien of some sort. In my own view, since I think this is true of the UFO phenomenon in general, it is not especially difficult to see it as true of the triangles.

What we can say for now is that there is no explanation yet offered to the public that brings all these triangles down to earth. There is a large body of evidence that continues to elude conventional explanation. The triangles do not all appear to be "ours."

----

Notes

1. The National UFO Reporting Center website is at http://www.nwlink.com/~ufocntr/

2. Darryl Barker’s website, Illinois UFO is at http://www.dbarkertv.com/UPDATE.htm

3. Night Seige, The Hudson Valley UFO Sightings, by Dr. J. Allen Hynek, Philip J. Imbrogno, and Bob Pratt, Llewellyn Publications, Second Edition, 1998.

4. See Don Berliner (with Marie Galbraith and Antonio Huneeus), UFO Briefing Document, Random House, 1995.

5. Bill Sweetman, Aurora, p. 13-15, 64.

6. See http://www.pastpresentfuture.info/alien_ufo_secret_fouche_tr3b.html ; by no means is Fouche’s the only such site on the Black Manta.

7. Project Triangle website is at http://homepage.ntlworld.com/project_ft/

8. Walter J. Boyne, Beyond the Wild Blue, A History of the United States Air Force, 1947-1997, St. Martin’s Press, 1997, p. 282.

9. "Belgium and the UFO Issue," US Department of Defense document, 30 March 1990.

10. NIDS Triangle Research is at http://www.nidsci.org/researchnews.html

11. "Comparison of Unidentified Triangular or Deltoid Aircraft Location Patterns in Three Independent UFO Databases: NIDS, MUFON and Larry Hatch." National Institute for Discovery Science, June 2001. http://216.128.67.116/pdf/triangularcraftdatabases.pdf

12. See Lighter than Air Solar, http://www.lvcm.com/walden/

This article is reproduced with permission of Richard M. Dolan and is taken from his website at: http://keyholepublishing.com/


UFOINFO
Copyright © UFOINFO
Articles are Copyright of the Author or Compiler