"Triangle" sighting last night - miltary?

[Hoffmeister]

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.

I didnt think i needed to be specific, i was just posting in a forum, i wasnt aware that it was going to be like a court of law. All you are doing is picking up on my language used and twisting it into some sort of attack.
Blanket statement?
They DO look like the latest stealth craft IMO, i wouldnt even be suprised if the stealth craft were based upon them! that maybe BS, but its my opinion, and i am allowed to have it.

Oh, and I'm sorry I called you a stalker."

I think you could manage that.

I'm not sorry, you keep showing up on all my posts and attacking me, its getting a little wierd now seriously!!
That said, i have already said i dont have anything against you and i truly don't. Its banter thats all...

 

[fitzbew88]

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...

Here's a photo of the ventral area of a B2:

http://www.pbase.com/doodlebugger/image/83206117

Where are the lights on the bottom? They're not there. So saying that they are in the face of reality seems outrageous to me.

So, right or wrong, I see that as the truth and I cannot ignore it. Not the evidence of my own eyes.

I didnt mis-identify anything, i saw a B2 with lights underneath it, and thought it looked like a BT.

What I mean by mis-identify is that you saw a B2 with its landing gear extended and illuminated and you mistook those lights as surface lights. When I showed you a picture of a B2, you just assumed the lights were there but OFF. You misidentified the nature of the lights; you didn't realize you were not merely suggesting to Siani that she saw a B2. You were telling her she saw a B2 in an anomalous configuration (in normal flight with its gear extended). And I knew that was unwise, and could not ignore it. Now, granted, it might have been convenient to ignore it but...we each have to do what we think is right and hope it mixes up in the proper ratio.

And if I make a mistake, I say I'm sorry and I move on.

I don't know what the FT's are but I know that B2s and other known stealth aircraft are very problematic solutions. Even unknown terrestrial stealth aircraft are problematic solutions.

I was expecting some tirade of abuse following the post so i didnt explain in any more detail.

Tirade of abuse? I've criticized you for not doing the research before your original post, but characterizing that as abuse seems a little extreme.

It wasn't necessary for you to go into very much more detail. You could've just said (in your first post): "It's possible you saw a B2 with it's gear extended. The resulting light configuration resembles FT." That would have been a careful, thoughtful statement. And we would then have explored such a possibility.

We have to accept uncertainty in the paranormal field, thus we must avoid expressions of certainty.

But when it comes to the non-paranormal, we can go and look for ourselves. We don't have to accept anything that doesn't match what we can see with our own two eyes.

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

Well, in my language, arguing with someone does not make you a stalker. And "...showing up after every post..." is what we do here. As a matter of fact, it's the only thing we do here.

 

[Hoffmeister]

Ok, i'm high on endorphins at the moment after some exercise so i'm feeling diplomatic.
I'll apologise and withdraw wall statements about stalkers etc on a few conditions.

Firstly you agree that whilst I was not wrong about the lights, I was very unspecific which gave rise to a lot of abiguity about my intended answer.
I will agree that to some degree I will make my answers more specific where possible, and if you are unsure what I mean, then instead of quoting me and trying to ridicule my answer, you simply ask me to specify like most people do. But i did not just make the stuff about the lights up, and have no reason to do so.

Please understand, that when i write on these forums, i am not writing as if it is a scientific paper, its just forum conversation and as a result (and due to lack of time) I am not always able to go into such detail. All i meant by my OP was that i have seen both craft, and they both looked similar to me. I honestly was not trying to be any more of an expert than that, and i am entitled to my post without harrasment.

Paola gets a whooping, and deserves one because she charges money for her services.... I am just a random person trying to have my say... and as far as i am aware, we're not in china so i am allowed to say what i want.

I am always happy to elaborate on my answers, and completely apologise if they are sometimes unspecific enough to maske my intended point clear.

If thats not a good enough apology, then its a lost cause ansd we should just avoid each other.

 

[macavity]

For what it's worth I've enjoyed/benefited from posts from both of you guys (I'm assuming you're both guys, if not fill in as appropriate) in the past, especially on the subject of FTs. Shame to see this little spat develop and hope it blows over, these kind of things have a habit of making others think twice before posting (admittedly that *can* be a good thing - especially in this field - but broadly speaking I think not).

Bottom line is there are plenty people out there more deserving of criticism...

 

[Drew UK]

Excellent - What talent - the world needs you!!

These guy's need to get together and work on the Israeli-Palestinian problem.

 

[fitzbew88]

I'll apologise and withdraw wall statements about stalkers etc on a few conditions.

I assume you mean "all" instead of "wall", and of course this is fine by me.

Firstly you agree that whilst I was not wrong about the lights, I was very unspecific which gave rise to a lot of abiguity about my intended answer.

To me, that seems like a fair and true statement.

I will agree that to some degree I will make my answers more specific where possible, and if you are unsure what I mean, then instead of quoting me and trying to ridicule my answer, you simply ask me to specify like most people do. But i did not just make the stuff about the lights up, and have no reason to do so.

Ok. For what it's worth, I don't care about everything. I do care about the theory that BT/FT's are known or unknown terrestrial craft, as I have already invested a modest amount of time and effort studying that idea.

To me, that theory is worth a vigorous discussion.

Please understand, that when i write on these forums, i am not writing as if it is a scientific paper, its just forum conversation and as a result (and due to lack of time) I am not always able to go into such detail. All i meant by my OP was that i have seen both craft, and they both looked similar to me. I honestly was not trying to be any more of an expert than that, and i am entitled to my post without harrasment.

Ok.

Paola gets a whooping, and deserves one because she charges money for her services....

I guess this is probably already discussed in some other thread.

I am just a random person trying to have my say... and as far as i am aware, we're not in china so i am allowed to say what i want.

And me too.

I am always happy to elaborate on my answers, and completely apologise if they are sometimes unspecific enough to maske my intended point clear.

Ok.

If thats not a good enough apology, then its a lost cause ansd we should just avoid each other.

Ok. And I'll apologize for joking that you lived with your Mom.

Which I'll be doing soon, if the economy doesn't pick up. So maybe I shouldn't be joking around about it anyway. Boy, breakfast is going to be AWKWARD!

 

[macavity]

What (if anything) do we make of the new information - from the podcast - that this craft was apparently flying blunt side on? Does this provide any clues or just make things even weirder?

Perhaps Siani's house is a kind of intergalactic cul-de-sac which you have to reverse out of? Just kidding

 

[fitzbew88]

...Perhaps Siani's house is a kind of intergalactic cul-de-sac which you have to reverse out of? Just kidding

Heh heh, that's funny.

 

[Hoffmeister]

What (if anything) do we make of the new information - from the podcast - that this craft was apparently flying blunt side on? Does this provide any clues or just make things even weirder?

Perhaps Siani's house is a kind of intergalactic cul-de-sac which you have to reverse out of? Just kidding

Actually Siani posted about the blunt end forward thing a couple of months back but i had forgotten who made the post. If it truly was flying blunt end forward and wasnt some sort of optical illusion then i think it basically rules out terrestrial craft.
Someone can correct me on this if i'm wrong but i am pretty sure there is no way anything can fly using current flying mechanics in such a way. From an aerodynamic perspective it would just not work.
I suppose a possible exception could be a blimp but it still seems a bit odd.

 

[Siani]

Those intergalactic bastards can stay right away from my house, with their flashing lights, bug eyes and rectal probe obsession.

Hoffmeister's right - this isn't the sighting I referred to on the show.

 

[Hoffmeister]

Those intergalactic bastards can stay right away from my house, with their flashing lights, bug eyes and rectal probe obsession.

Hoffmeister's right - this isn't the sighting I referred to on the show.

Oh, i thought this was the sighting you spoke about on the show, i just meant that you had already spoken about it in another post.

So you've seen two triangles? Were they both flying blunt edge forward or just one?

 

[Hoffmeister]

Ok, i think i may have the answer here.
I just went out into my backyard to throw the rubbish out, and heard the sound of a plane. I looked up and saw it. I could just about make out it was a passenger jet... but... it had three white lights in a triangle shape, and a red blinking light in the middle. Whats interesting that the the right and the left light were at the front, and the last light was at the back. if you couldn't see the outline it would look like a triangle flying blunt edge on.
Did you see the outline when you saw your sighting?
if not, this could be the explanation....
If there are passenger jets flying round with this light configuration its not suprised people are perhaps seeing lots of them.

Incidently, the triangle i saw, which was definately a triangle had HUGE lights on the corner. They looked nothing like aircraft lights, they were absolutely massive, so this might be a way to tell the real, from the aircraft ones.

 

[macavity]

Whats interesting that the the right and the left light were at the front, and the last light was at the back. if you couldn't see the outline it would look like a triangle flying blunt edge on.

Interesting you should bring this up, I saw the same thing when I was out a few nights ago and thought the same.

Siani, is there a possibility it might have been a regular aircraft but due to the low light your brain (quite understandably) just filled in the blanks?