It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


A brief history of experimental aircraft...

page: 1

log in


posted on Jan, 28 2005 @ 07:51 AM
Dear ATS,

Having grown tired of the same repetitive posts from 'non believrs and skeptics' citing experimental craft made and tested in the good old USA as credible alternative [and much more believable] theories for what has been caught on film on radar, and sworn to by experienced, professional observers, pilots and NATO allies..I present here a concise site all about what is known about our 'experimental aircraft ' programs:

Note the problems and failures with Stealth bombers and fighters..the details of other craft known to have been funded by the government.
Look at the cost over-runs, the crashes, the undefined earthly combat roles...

Those of you sskeptics who believe heart and soul that we possess the skills and the metals to make anti-gravity craft...and that such craft are so reliable that we deploy them at night to terrorize friendly forces..would also havce to beleive that we were funding and flying these vehioles over Belgium in 1989.

And since we have credible and anecdotal evidence of black triangles going back more than a century prior to the belgian sighting, someone of you doubters would have to explain who had anti-gravity devices way back then.
Of course you could discount the reports of antiquity by claiming wtnesses of the time were more prone to fantasy and hysteria than we are now...but that still would not obviate the fact that until the present day not one source has come forward on the record to claim the craft sighted óver mexico, belgium and at least a dozen other nations were 'one of ours'..not has any scientific paper been presented in any forum in which the principles of applied anti-gravity have been demonstrated to such a degree that funding for said craft would have been feasible, even today, let alone in the mid- 80's.
for one thing, the stresses that the metals or fabrics would have to go through while attaining such speeds as recorded surpass anyting that we can currently manufacture anywhere on the planet..
Further, even if they were unmanned vehicles, the remote pilots would have to be able to direct the craft in real-time faster, over more terrain and around unplanned or undirected aircraft than anyone in any arcade or laboratory has so far been able to demonstrate.
Computers, even super-computer of the era could not have handled the processing power required to control such craft at such speeds, and altitudes, given the variables of weather, and hostile or alarmed pilots attempting to chase down said craft.

And to date no credible reason for carrying out such a 'military' or black-ops exercise has been offered by any authority to explain the lights seen over brussels, mexico, israel, Indonesia, USSR, and other lands.

What will it take to shake the skeptics out of denial..and why bother talking to them at all if they wish..indeed fight! be left alone in their ignorance?


posted on Jan, 28 2005 @ 11:52 AM
Dear Group,

Consider this a PS to my first post.
I find it helps when attemtpting to ascertain the credibility of any given official story to explain unusual or news making events to remember these three basic questions to determine truth from cover stories and CYA...with respect to UFO's and the like...
What is an exercise
What is a cover story
What is CYA

"Secret Military/Black Ops Exercise" using experimental or highly advanced super-secret technlogy, is prrobably the most frequent assumption..often stated as bald fact, which tends to come from skeptics..non-believers in the whole UFO biz.

First of all..this is using a rumour to substantiate a rumour...i.e..a rumoured agency supposedly carrying out a hush hush operation using who knows what....that's the evidence skeptics use to disbelieve the hard evidence before them. Incredible , isn't it?

Why do militaries carry out 'exercises'to begin with..what is the purpose of an exercise?
Well, there are 4 reasons ..
1. To test/train personnel in the use of new tactics or weaponry
2. To test weapons systems or tactics on objects or 'simulated' threats
3. To measure the reaction of ground forces/observers to the deployment of said weapons and tactics as a means of evaluating the psychological impact and effect on morale or combat effectiveness
4. To evaluate overall readiness to defend against a known or projected threat using observed or predicted weapons and tactics...

Operations are only different from exercizes in that the threats , the ammunition and the dying is all real....and generally speaking 'operations rarely go as well as most exercises...

So for our government, or any government to have carried out an exercise of any type over non-sovereign territory the exercise would have to be justified by one or more of these 4 reasons.

Let's take the black triangles sighted over Belgium[1989] and Mexico[2004] and analyse the 'cover story'.
The Belgian Minister of Defense supported his pilots who gave a news conference to explain to the the thousands of citizens who witnessed these lights their efforts to chase the objects down and the speeds and manouvres these objects got up to in evading them.

To believe this was some sort of Black ops 'exercise'would mean that against all protocol and in violation of several binding treaties and conventions a Defense Minister of an allied [NATO] fact of the ally in which NATO has its headquarters, was not informed that Belgian airspace was about to be violated, nor was any other member of his government notified that we were about to deliberately terrify major segments of their population, as well as publicly defy the known laws of earthly physics and prove Einstein wrong... I say that to all the anti-gravity fans...
And by the way..get your physics's not about defying gravity, its about phasing in and out of time/dimensional certainty...but I won't bore you with that here...for those who are curious..go to

I've asked this on other threads but still await an anwer:
What possible military or national security consideration would justify the deployment of super-secret technology by super-secret agencies in a super-secret operation over 'friendly' air-space in 1989 or 2004?

Cover stories are used to;
1 Hide the true intention or nature of an exercise from test subjects
2 Allay the fears of civilians , enemies and allies
3 Misdirect or misinform the media

The cover story is only effective when used prior to planned exercises /operations.

Any story issued AFTER the conclusion of the exercise is to be seen as an amendment of a cover story or in plainer text; classic CYA

CYA is what people in government and other senior positions everywhere and in all fields use to retroactively account for the 'unplanned'...and can be most easily spotted when it contradicts previously issued 'official statements'

To be honest some of the CYA stories I've been reading on websites..and even here on ATS...are more implausible and have even less hard evidence behind them than the idea that UFO's are flying our skies unchallenged...and yet the self-professed skeptics bray on asking us for hard evidence?
Show me the hard evidence of an American made anti-gravity me the hard evidence of TR-3B's..has nay 'skeptic seen one"NO....
but how many have seen black triangles?
Are they saying the Americans prefer to let the Belgians get a good look at what your tax dollars are buying for our super-gooks to play with ?


posted on Jan, 29 2005 @ 09:39 AM

Originally posted by Shai
What possible military or national security consideration would justify the deployment of super-secret technology by super-secret agencies in a super-secret operation over 'friendly' air-space in 1989 or 2004?

There can be a million reasons for this! Ranging from testing of personnel perparedness, including radar, communications, emergency response, etc.

posted on Feb, 11 2005 @ 05:28 AM

Originally posted by senshido

Originally posted by Shai
What possible military or national security consideration would justify the deployment of super-secret technology by super-secret agencies in a super-secret operation over 'friendly' air-space in 1989 or 2004?

There can be a million reasons for this! Ranging from testing of personnel perparedness, including radar, communications, emergency response, etc.

And the first rule is that s*** happens, meaning you had better have a cover story and you had better inform the people who have authority over the region that s*** may happen.
The fact that the belgians [mexicans, and 5 other friendly gov'ts] came out in formal press conferences to say they have evidence of the incredible which is unexplainable is the dead give-away that these events were not in any way 'tests'of experimental equipment of radar installations and their personnel.

In every gov't program there are delays, cost over-runs, glitches and hitches..and that is just using convetional technology..however 'cutting edge' it may seem at the time.
Most programs take an average of 12-16 years from drawing board to completion/delivery of the system.

Here we are talking about craft the size of battleships going from hover to mach 10 in less than 3 you have any idea of the g-forces that pilots would be going through? It would knock them unconscious.

And who would explain the wreckage if it crashed? Would you risk flying your ultra-secret weapon over a heavily crowded civilian area with no guarantee that your troops or agents would be the first on the ground to recover the pieces.
Would you run the risk of letting such super-secret technology falling into civilian, enemy or criminal hands?

Are you suggesting these incidents are some grand Psy-Ops exercise to test civilian and un-briefed friendly gov'ts and their armed forces to some hypothetical invasion from space or contact with E.T's? And to what end...I mean why test unless you knew the possibility was very very real for such an invasion?

And why, if we have these propulsion systems that work on anti-gravityy, has no one from NASA been informed? I'm sure they could use such a system on their upcoming MARS missions..but they seem unaware of these anti-gravs which is peculiar given that NASA is so heavily dependent on US Airforce and US Gov't contracts and is responsible for launching secret military hardware into space.

And lastly, the Belgian sightings came a full two years before the 'secret aircraft' most commonly blamed for these sightings were even put on the drawing board..




log in