"Triangle" sighting last night - miltary?

[fitzbew88]

you see, you're so intent on ridiculing everything i say, you can't even remember why you were posting about my comments in the first place....
http://forum.theparacast.com/genera...f5/a-fan-of-the-paracast-and-a-skeptic-t2734/
See the second post where it all started (although it all really started in the thread about signs)

Oh, I see. How funny. In that section of the thread you were saying that the Belgian wave was ET, and I wondered about whether it could be an unknown terrestrial craft.

In this thread you asserted the B2 as a solution to FT reports, and I don't think that is tenable.

Funny.

And why do you keep going on about how i was wrong... and factually incorrect.
as far as i am aware I was factually correct... the bomber DOES have three lights on it, and it DOES have a blinking light on the bottom.

Where was i incorrect?

No, it has 2-3 landing lights, which are not visible except when the landing gear are extended. When I showed you a ventral view of a B2 with no lights, you insisted they were merely off. You never even considered landing gear lights until I pointed them out to you.

You were wrong: the B2 doesn't have "three big bright lights" on its ventral surface.

Even if you don't think that these statements are correct, it doesnt mean that they arent, its just your opinion.

Nonsense. The lighting configuration of the B2 is not a matter of opinion.

 

[Hoffmeister]

Oh, I see. How funny. In that section of the thread you were saying that the Belgian wave was ET, and I wondered about whether it could be an unknown terrestrial craft.

In this thread you asserted the B2 as a solution to FT reports, and I don't think that is tenable.

Funny.



No, it has 2-3 landing lights, which are not visible except when the landing gear are extended. When I showed you a ventral view of a B2 with no lights, you insisted they were merely off. You never even considered landing gear lights until I pointed them out to you.

You were wrong: the B2 doesn't have "three big bright lights" on its ventral surface.



Nonsense. The lighting configuration of the B2 is not a matter of opinion.

My statement was that the B2 bomber has three lights underneath it. I didnt specify anything else, now whether they were on the ventral surface, not whether they were landing gear, just that it has three lights underneath it.
The reason i said this is that i remember watching a video and thinking how much it looked like a BT.
THAT... is fact... i didnt just sit here and make this shit up.
Everything else was just brought up from your bullshit.
The fact is... i HAVE seen a video with a B2 with three lights underneath it.
The fact is that its possible some other people have made this mistake also
The fact is, that i am getting pretty sick and tired of your BS now, it getting very childish

 

[Hoffmeister]

and stop talking like your some sodding expert on B2's, all you have done is scrap together a few youtube video's and images

 

[fitzbew88]

My statement was that the B2 bomber has three lights underneath it.

It doesn't. It has landing lights like most other aircraft, but they are not visible when the plane is in normal flight (the landing gear is retracted).

I didnt specify anything else, now whether they were on the ventral surface, not whether they were landing gear, just that it has three lights underneath it.

You are correct, that was me. And you're welcome.

The reason i said this is that i remember watching a video and thinking how much it looked like a BT.

Well....that is a matter of opinion. What is not a matter of opinion is the lighting configuration of a B2.

THAT... is fact... i didnt just sit here and make this shit up.

No, I think you just didn't know what you were talking about. You didn't realize that the three lights were landing lights and wouldn't be visible during normal flight. That's ok. We know what happened now.

Everything else was just brought up from your bullshit.

If by "bullshit", you mean careful research into B2 ventral lighting configurations, then yes.

The fact is... i HAVE seen a video with a B2 with three lights underneath it.

Yes. It was probably taking off or landing.

The fact is that its possible some other people have made this mistake also

What mistake? Mistaking a B2 for a FT? Well....as I've said a couple of times, it's possible that B2s are responsible for some UFO reports. But I don't think they are good candidates for most reports for several reasons, only some of which we've touched upon here.

The FT's could be some other type of covert craft, but it would be imprudent to offer up the idea that "...the latest stealth airplanes look just like them." The B2's ventral lighting configuration doesn't match what folks are reporting. It doesn't match what Siani reported.

The fact is, that i am getting pretty sick and tired of your BS now, it getting very childish

Well, I have tried to tell you the truth as best I know it, and I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings. But I don't think it's reasonable to write off the FT's as B2's, especially under the umbrella of misunderstood lighting configurations.

 

[Kieran]

and stop talking like your some sodding expert on B2's, all you have done is scrap together a few youtube video's and images

Good discussions are fun to watch.

But I think it has got to the point where you are very pissed off Hoff

The debate it almost pointless at this stage, ye will never agree or come to a solution, That ye both agree on....

"STALKERS" can be arrested in the real world F
here is the number to call 999 H

 

[macavity]

Siani,

Thanks for your original post, I think it's very useful. Presumably there's little or no doubt in your mind that the jet noise was associated with the craft in question (and not something else in the vicinity)?

Macavity

 

[Gareth]

Siani,

Thanks for your original post, I think it's very useful. Presumably there's little or no doubt in your mind that the jet noise was associated with the craft in question (and not something else in the vicinity)?

Macavity

I was thinking the same thing. Also, how fast was the object moving? Did it appear to be hovering? Or moving is such a way that would be impossible for a regular airplane.

 

[Hoffmeister]

Good discussions are fun to watch.

But I think it has got to the point where you are very pissed off Hoff

The debate it almost pointless at this stage, ye will never agree or come to a solution, That ye both agree on....

"STALKERS" can be arrested in the real world F
here is the number to call 999 H

Lol, nah mate i'm not pissed off, although i'm not sure that this would constitue a good discussion so far. I feel a little embaressed that my stalker has railroaded this discussion into a petty argument.
I really would like him to enlighten us as to what the OP saw...

Anyway i'm ignoring his every post from now on, so lets get back to the intelligent conversations!

 

[Hoffmeister]

Just after nightfall last night, I saw what looked like a classic flying triangle. It had three lights at each point of the triangle, and a central, blinking red light. But it was accompanied by the unmistakeable sound of a jet engine. I couldn't see any other aircraft in the vicinity, although there are NATO aerial exercises going on in the region (south and west Wales, UK) at the moment.

Although this clearly wasn't a bona fide UFO, I thought I'd post it, to raise awareness that the military appears to have an aircraft that carries lights in the same configuration as those reported on FTs. This could explain a lot of the 'lights in the sky' type triangle reports - but obviously not the ones where the triangular craft themselves, not just the lights, are seen.

Anyway going back to the OP, was Wales covered in a thick fog like a lot of other parts of the UK were that night?
There was an insanely thick fog on Saturday where I live, and my housemate drove back from a wedding in Devon and said the fog was all the way down there too.
Perhaps it was a plane with its landing lights on for extra visibility. I'm pretty sure I saw a plane with a red blinking nav light the other day too so maybe that would explain the light in this case.

Once again... just a suggestion....

 

[Siani]

I'm pretty sure the jet noise came from the craft in question, as I couldn't see any other aircraft in the vicinity. That said, part of the sky was obscured by rooftops. I live under the flight path of Cardiff International Airport, plus there's also a NATO exercise going on in the area:

Forced to guard us at all times

The object wasn't moving very fast. I can't estimate a speed, but it seemed slower than the average airliner - sorry to be so imprecise. It didn't hover, but kept going on a steady flight path, east to west. There seemed nothing unconventional about its flight pattern. I can't give an accurate judgement of its height, but it seemed much higher than a light aircraft, though not as high as a passenger jet.

It wasn't foggy when I saw the object. There were a few patches of broken cloud, but apart from that, it was fairly clear at the time. The triangular light formation spooked me a little, but I'm still pretty confident it was a plane of some kind, especially with the NATO exercise going on at the moment.

 

[Hoffmeister]

Hm.. Perhaps we'll never know what it was. The only other thing I could think of was that it had its lights on for the military manueveres, or perhaps it was a new craft we havent seen before.
The latter is a lot more exciting!

 

[fitzbew88]

I feel a little embaressed ...

And you should feel embarrassed but you can avoid these situations by doing your research *before* making outrageous statements.

In this case, it wasn't until *after* I expressed skepticism that you did cursory research and talked to your Mo----, ahh, housemate. Then, you realized that the B2 has no such triangular ventral light formation. It just has landing lights like virtually every other plane. You made a mistake and you could've embraced the new information I shared with you. Instead, you let pride dictate to you.

It's ok to make mistakes, so don't feel too embarrassed. You should just apologize and move on.

Don't make outlandish statements, and you won't be treated outlandishly.

Remember, this area falls under the domain of the paranormal, an area of research that has suffered mightily because of a lack of critical thinking and the fact that people believe they can just spew out any gibberish they want without penalty.

Those days (at least in these forums) are over.

Anyway i'm ignoring his every post from now on, so lets get back to the intelligent conversations!

I understand, but remember: I'm trying to help you.

 

[fitzbew88]

Hm.. Perhaps we'll never know what it was. The only other thing I could think of was that it had its lights on for the military manueveres, or perhaps it was a new craft we havent seen before.
The latter is a lot more exciting!

Now, this is a slightly better post (still some problems with it), but it's worlds ahead of this:

Yeah the stealth bomber has three lights underneath it in an exact triangle, they are particularly bright when it takes off. Also, as far as I am aware, I think all planes have to have a blinking light on them when they fly. Thats one of the main problems with triangle sightings, the latest stealth airplanes look just like them.

Can you see the difference?

 

[Hoffmeister]

Now, this is a slightly better post (still some problems with it), but it's worlds ahead of this:

Can you see the difference?

Must..... stop..... posting.......
Argh i can't help it lol!!

Seriously, I now have no idea what you're on about. Both of those posts are saying the same thing to me, and I still agree with what i said in both of them.
Lets look at what I said:
Yeah the stealth bomber has three lights underneath it in an exact triangle - TRUE, they are the landing lights, which I have established can sometimes be left on during flight, like the one in the video I saw.

they are particularly bright when it takes off: Makes sense as they are landing lights

Also, as far as I am aware, I think all planes have to have a blinking light on them when they fly - TRUE, this is the nav light

Thats one of the main problems with triangle sightings, the latest stealth airplanes look just like them. Having actually seen a BT, i think the fact that it is a big black triangle, with three lights on the bottom kind of strikes up a resemblance

For some reason you are saying i am categorically wrong, you say you have done detailed research to prove that the lights are attached to the wheels. even if they were, it wouldnt make any difference, but so far i havent seen any evidence.
You need to lose the spiteful tone in your posts, suggesting that i asked my mom about airplanes and things like that doesnt help explain the matter at all, it just goes do discredit yourself.

 

[Kieran]

Must..... stop..... posting.......
Argh i can't help it lol!!

Seriously, I now have no idea what you're on about. Both of those posts are saying the same thing to me, and I still agree with what i said in both of them.
Lets look at what I said:
Yeah the stealth bomber has three lights underneath it in an exact triangle - TRUE, they are the landing lights, which I have established can sometimes be left on during flight, like the one in the video I saw.

they are particularly bright when it takes off: Makes sense as they are landing lights

Also, as far as I am aware, I think all planes have to have a blinking light on them when they fly - TRUE, this is the nav light

Thats one of the main problems with triangle sightings, the latest stealth airplanes look just like them. Having actually seen a BT, i think the fact that it is a big black triangle, with three lights on the bottom kind of strikes up a resemblance

For some reason you are saying i am categorically wrong, you say you have done detailed research to prove that the lights are attached to the wheels. even if they were, it wouldnt make any difference, but so far i havent seen any evidence.
You need to lose the spiteful tone in your posts, suggesting that i asked my mom about airplanes and things like that doesnt help explain the matter at all, it just goes do discredit yourself.

Hoff... ye two should buy a house, ye make a lovely couple.

 

[fitzbew88]

Must..... stop..... posting.......
Argh i can't help it lol!!

You know, I thought you wouldn't be able to stick to that. Just a feeling.

Seriously, I now have no idea what you're on about. Both of those posts are saying the same thing to me..

And perhaps you've identified the crux of the problem.

Lets look at what I said:
Yeah the stealth bomber has three lights underneath it in an exact triangle - TRUE, they are the landing lights, which I have established can sometimes be left on during flight, like the one in the video I saw.

Good try, but no. When I showed you a photo of the ventral area of a B2, you insisted that the lights were off --- that's why they were not visible.

Unfortunately it was only after I deduced that you had simply misidentified landing lights, did you get on the Landing Lights Bandwagon.

And again, you're welcome. I'm glad to help.

they are particularly bright when it takes off: Makes sense as they are landing lights

Yes. Don't you wish you had figured this out on your own? If you had realized (and acknowledged) your mistake initially you could've avoided the necessity to call me false names later on.

Thats one of the main problems with triangle sightings, the latest stealth airplanes look just like them. Having actually seen a BT, i think the fact that it is a big black triangle, with three lights on the bottom kind of strikes up a resemblance

Now, on your own, can you see the difference between:

Thats one of the main problems with triangle sightings, the latest stealth airplanes look just like them.

and this:

...the fact that it is a big black triangle, with three lights on the bottom kind of strikes up a resemblance.

You're backtracking, and that's ok, don't be embarrassed. Remember, I'm trying to help you.

For some reason you are saying i am categorically wrong..

I don't know what you mean by "categorically wrong", but don't toss and turn over this. Just next time, do the research *before* making outrageous statements.

you say you have done detailed research to prove that the lights are attached to the wheels.

No I didn't. What I did was look at video and photos of real B2s. B2's are not paranormal, they are real objects in the real world and an enormous amount of information and imagery is available concerning them. Would you like some more photos and/or video?

It sounds like you are backtracking away from your conclusion that you simply misidentified landing gear lights in a video you watched at some time in the distant past.

You need to lose the spiteful tone in your posts...

Dude. You called me a stalker. Come on.

...suggesting that i asked my mom about airplanes and things like that doesnt help explain the matter at all, it just goes do discredit yourself.

Yeah, well, I am teasing you a little but you've got to admit you've made it really easy.

 

[Hoffmeister]

Hoff... ye two should buy a house, ye make a lovely couple.

LOL, or i could gouge my eyes out with a rusty spoon, i can't decide which would be more fun..

 

[fitzbew88]

...ye two should buy a house, ye make a lovely couple.

Ha ha, well I hear it's a buyer's market.

 

[fitzbew88]

LOL, or i could gouge my eyes out with a rusty spoon, i can't decide which would be more fun..

Well, you know you could always just take the high road and say: "You know, Fitz, you're right I should've been more specific in my first post. And I shouldn't have made a blanket statement that FT's look just like the latest stealth aircraft. The topic certainly warrants being a little circumspect. Oh, and I'm sorry I called you a stalker."

I think you could manage that.

 

[Hoffmeister]

Good try, but no. When I showed you a photo of the ventral area of a B2, you insisted that the lights were off --- that's why they were not visible.

Unfortunately it was only after I deduced that you had simply misidentified landing lights, did you get on the Landing Lights Bandwagon.

Yes. Don't you wish you had figured this out on your own? If you had realized (and acknowledged) your mistake initially you could've avoided the necessity to call me false names later on.

I didnt suggest I knew what the lights were, i simply suggested that it has three lights on the bottom... because i had seen a video where it did. In fact, you're right, i didnt know they were neccesarily the landing lights until you suggested it in the second post, i thought they might be but you confirmed that they were.
So what, it doesnt make any difference to my original post which was meant to show that the OP might have seen a B2 or something similar

I don't know what you mean by "categorically wrong", but don't toss and turn over this. Just next time, do the research *before* making outrageous statements.

Still dont see whats outrageous... that the B2 has lights on the bottom, or that it looks like a BT. neither seem outrageous to me

It sounds like you are backtracking away from your conclusion that you simply misidentified landing gear lights in a video you watched at some time in the distant past.

I didnt mis-identify anything, i saw a B2 with lights underneath it, and thought it looked like a BT. I was expecting some tirade of abuse following the post so i didnt explain in any more detail.

Dude. You called me a stalker. Come on.

Well you keep showing up after every post and picking at them, mostly just misunderstanding the language i use.