Hacker News Reader

Comment by woodruffn | Hacker News Reader

I've seen two variants of this fly over my house in Colorado a few years ago. Giant triangular craft moving silently at insane speed - clearing the entire night sky in 7 seconds, appeared to be the size of an aircraft carrier. They have 5 very dim white points of light underneath that outline their triangle shape. I wouldn't even believe my own eyes except that my wife shared the experience with me.

View on HN

Welcome to Colorado. If you camp up in the mountains where there is no light pollution and do some stargazing you'll usually see something classified within a week or two. It was hilarious to me when the B-21 was announced and I could confirm I wasn't regularly hallucinating the profile of an F-117 or something.

The stuff they are doing now with drones is even more wild, I can't wait to read about how those actually work in a few years.

In approx 1989 or so, i was doing marching exercises at the truckee california airport for my civil air patrol group...

My command leader was a former SR-71 flight mechanic...

We were marching about, and it was just after dusk, but a full moon.

At the horizon, we saw a craft come up over the mountains at incredible speed - and we watched it as it was flying at a vertical as opposed to an arc which a winged aircraft woulld require...

Within seconds the thing was hovering about 100 feet above us. Silently. A huge triangle with the white lights on corners and one in the middle.

Our commander yelled and said “everyone inside now!” And hustled us back into our hangar office...

—-

About three weeks ago, in santa rosa ca, i saw a sphere glowing in the sky and moving at a rate which was impossible for conventional craft..

And as i watched it, it literally just disappeared.

I fully believe bob lazar.

Why would anyone controlling such an aircraft deliberately take it to a hovering position above 100 feet of people who have never seen it before? Aren't these flight tests supposed to happen away from public's view? It looks as if on one hand, the government wants to keep a tight lid on these things, on the other hand, they want to give it all away so easily (based on stories such as yours), which makes no sense. I will be a skeptic until the day I can get to lick the surface of such a craft.

It seems like tech so incredible as this would make eyewitness testimony quite literally “unbelievable” and “incredible”. If you had tech like that, you could pretty much show yourself to any group of people less than the population of an entire city, and nobody would believe them.

But what is the motivation? What do they get by showing it a small group, other than to just make the group question their sanity?

It doesn’t necessarily need to be intentional. Perhaps they had some other business to fly to that airport, and simply don’t care if there are people there or not due to the “unbelievability effect” which they’d be well aware of.

(Obviously I’m just speculating, and I’m not assigning belief either way to any of this; I just enjoy thinking about the possibilities here.)

Or why do they keep putting lights on aircraft that are secret/not to be seen...

Are the lights an emergent phenom from whatever that device is?

I'm as skeptical as everyone else to believe your story even though I've seen two of these. Can you describe the color, markings, or material of the craft? With my experience all I could make out were the 5 points of dim light and nothing else.

I dont care ifany believes me. I know what i experienced.

I have no idea why the thing did what it did, but i will never forget that experience in my life.

The color and materials were flat matt black, the lights were white and diffuse... not beams or anything.

It was completely silent.

At what altitude? When I think of fast, I think of a jet doing a flyby that clears the sky faster than I can raise my head...

Not that this matters much but I used to do a ton of photoshop work down to the pixel and would manually refocus my eyes to clear them. I felt like Wally doing this 3 or 4 times trying to gauge the altitude. It was definitely above the cloud level. I put it around normal cruising altitude of a commercial jet but at that altitude it had to be the size of an aircraft carrier because of spacing of the lights. After talking to several people about this others suggested it was much lower than I described because of the flight characteristics, but I guarantee we didn't get buzzed by this thing; it was miles away.

> I've seen two variants of this fly over my house in Colorado a few years ago. Giant triangular craft

These are supposed to look “tictac” not triangular. Perhaps you saw another alien technology ...

Not NOSS satellite triplets?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kf5f6AKvo3U

My theory is that tic-tac is the newer tech.

Triangle used to be required because they would use two “engines” to hover/float and one to pro-pulse.

Aligns with. Bob lazars statements.

We dont know anything about the internals of the tic-tac

No pics?

The events only lasted a few seconds and even as I was pointing at it and shouting to my wife - it took her a moment to realize what was happening and she nearly missed it. I can't take a convincing photo of the moon. This would have been impossible.

Triangular UFOs are interesting. When i was at work one day, (we work on top of a large hill that overlooks land to the horizon) I see a triangular UFO light up and fly slowly towards us. I tell my colleagues, but they are surprisingly not interested. I watched it for a while, my heart in my mouth, sweating. It turned out to be helicopters flying in formation through a very light mist.

If you cannot take a convincing photo of the moon, you should stop talking about UFOs and instead focus on learning to take a convincing photo of the moon. I hope you get the point. This is not an attempt to ridicule you, just pointing out the amount of ridiculousness in your post.

Ok, so I've taken one crisp clear photo of the moon through a friends telescope they let me borrow and I did it with my iPhone. It took 30 minutes to set up and calibrate, I had to position it on the moon, and keep adjusting the tracking. I'm sure 99% of the population has never done this. When I say I can't take a convincing photo of the moon I mean that if I had to capture an event that only lasted 7 seconds and it was the size of the moon; the photo would be a white dot on a black background. You sound like you need to diagnosed if you think I'm not allowed to talk about an experience because I didn't take a picture for you.

Maybe you should enlighten us with examples and procedures.

Examples and procedures to take a convincing photo of the moon - you need google and some money for the equipment.

Examples and procedures to take a convincing photo of an erratically moving UFO - I don't claim I have the know-how. All I know is the evidence has to be high quality and irrefutable to make such a claim. My point is, people should not be talking about phenomena they don't understand as if they are true, if they have no skills to gather required evidence.

> the evidence has to be high quality and irrefutable

Please provide an annotated list of irrefutable evidence that others have created so I can see what you are talking about...

Edit: actually if I were to meet you in real life you could just ask my wife about the incident. She hates the fact that she saw it too: I used to talk about this stuff but backed off in recent years. Because she was there it validated the fact that there is some type of conspiracy in the world. We don't know the exact details of the conspiracy but something is definitely not as it seems when a silent triangle rips across the night sky.

Edit2: a simple google search and the second video appears to be what I saw. It's going much slower but the light pattern and altitude are what I remember. Watch the whole video - the first lights are just a plane https://youtu.be/RoR0izkByAI

A conspiracy is collusion to violate a law. No violation, no conspiracy.

Hi politics bot, thanks for defining this in presidential terms.

Let's just call it a conspiracy theory then.

Again: For it to be conspiracy, there must be violation of law. A "conspiracy theory" needs a law violated, at least in theory. Keeping or sharing secrets does not violate law -- unless the secrets are about violations of law.

Is this really difficult? Nixon had a conspiracy both to violate laws, and to cover up violating laws, making at least three violations. Trump's people probably conspired to violate laws against foreign influence on elections. Clinton didn't conspire to perjure, because it was just him.

Dude. What?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com