It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Let's play, "Who's got the UFO??" ...

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 06:57 AM
link   
Last night, I was watching a show on UFOs, either on A&E or History Channel, sorry... Don't remember exactly. At any rate, it was addressing the fact that UFOs are government/military items and not necessarily from planet Munimula.

I'm always curious about the field and where these critters originate.
Having seen a couple of things fly by that I can't identify makes me wonder. Anyway, they interviewed an old geezer (like me) who was named Jack Picket. He claimed to have had official backing and pictures (at one time) of military flying saucers, one of which, was 119 feet in diameter. Mr. Picket also stated that these saucers had been used in space flight and that they were being scrapped because we had developed even better technology.

They also interviewed another fellow, whose name escapes me, who claimed to have been at a combat group reunion at Wright Patterson. He also claims to have seen a very large saucer in a hanger before being chased off by security.

It seems a pity that the smoking gun evidence always disappears (Picket's pics were taken back by the government), and in this case, he was left only with artist's renderings of what he claims to have seen.

I'm not sure how I feel about this, but it tends to make more sense than not. It seems, however, that we "non-believers" are stuck with the same lack of evidence, the same sad stories, and the same blankets of conspiracy and paranoia as the "true believers".

Any comments? Or am I, once again, standing in a deserted canyon and talking to myself?




posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 07:55 AM
link   
Interesting that there have been so many views and no replies.

I guess the discussion of the differences either leaves folks cold or finds them with no ammuniton for a discussion.

typical, i would assume as I have posted several times in the past only to receive minimal attention or no responses. Does this mean I'm not popular enough to warrant discussion or response? Am I asking the wrong questions?
Do I need to be a fire breathing sceptic instead of a questioning traveler?

Oh well.... Back to the drawing board ... I am going to try and come up with something accusatory, slanderous, and mean spirited to get a discussion going on issues that are real to me.


ie. True UFO believers are sissy-boys! Even the female true believers are sissy-boys!!!! Prove me wrong!


[edit on 15-11-2005 by sigung86]
Edited two times to make the last proposition more scandalous and mean spirited!!!


[edit on 15-11-2005 by sigung86]



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 08:06 AM
link   
Meh..............


(just checking i can post and your not in some other ever so slightly out of phase forum)



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 08:06 AM
link   
I know who has the UFO...

The Government may have UFOs, crafts with unique design and technology, people look up in the sky, they may not think they are plane made by man.

Well, here is my simple reply: Aliens and humans have UFOs. But we call UFO the alien crafts...



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 11:28 AM
link   
Who has the ET UFO? The believers, they have them hidden in their heads. It's all in their thoughts. Who has the real UFO? The military, in some hidden underground base in the dessert.


[edit on 15-11-2005 by Devilishkitty]



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by sigung86
Last night, I was watching a show on UFOs, either on A&E or History Channel, sorry... Don't remember exactly. At any rate, it was addressing the fact that UFOs are government/military items and not necessarily from planet Munimula.

I watched that show also, and found it interesting. It was on the History Channel, the "UFO Files". I don't doubt that the military and aeronautics companies were interested in this design and built craft. The Avrocar is proof of that. But as far as the other claims of space flight, I have to wonder about, and it still does not explain the flying saucers that were seen prior to the fifties. And it leads me to ask a few questions.

Why were they so interested in this design to begin with? What lead them to believe that the saucer shape was the optimum shape for high-speed aircraft? The show even said the chief designer John Frost got his ideas from UFO’s.

Why are they still classified? Even the stealth planes are public knowledge and were developed 20 years later.

Why haven't any UFO's been seen with insignias painted on the craft as depicted in the pictures? The craft I saw in the pictures really don’t match any pictures of UFO's I have seen.

Undoubtedly some experimental craft have been mistaken for UFO's, but it does not account for all the sightings all over the world.



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 01:00 PM
link   
Great topic. I saw the same epsode. The first half about German UFO technology wasn't the best but I do know that the Germans designed and attempted to utilize very unconvertional designs late in the war. I can't remember the mans full name. The one who had his photos taken back. What was his full name?

See this link for an idea of what the USAF had planned durring the Cold War.
USAF Nuclear Powered Flying Saucer
(Scroll down the page for pictures and info)

[edit on 15-11-2005 by nullster]



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cs_Exile
Meh..............


(just checking i can post and your not in some other ever so slightly out of phase forum)


Meh??? Aye 'n 'tis tha saim Univarse, Ya Bludy Pagan!!!!



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 04:02 PM
link   
There are numerous (and public) past government disc-shaped craft experiments. These range in size from one-man crafts to multi-passenger vehicles. There are even some interesting patents posssessed by the likes of Lockheed and Boeing, of large disc craft.

However, IF they were successful...given the timeframe, we'd have seen them in production in either military or commercial applications by now. I seriously doubt we have some secret fleet of space fighters while we send up aging shuttles that blow up and cause national humiliation....

Personally, I think we're still firmly planted in phase II of our reverse engineering efforts...much like a caveman finding a television....or perhaps a little further along, but not much.



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 04:59 PM
link   
I too saw that show. Some things about it puzzled me. In that show one of the things that they stated (as an aside) was that the Mogul balloon was supposed to be something that spied on the Russians, hence it’s super secret classification.

I find it odd that something meant to be “stealthy” carried long trains of radar reflectors and at least three (if not more) large crash test dummies…. look out Russians, the crash test dummies are watching you!!

I also found the Picket story to be interesting… here’s what he claimed he saw, said was a stable aircraft, capable of reaching super sonic speeds, and could even fly into space:

www.ufowisconsin.com...

I find it odd that a re-useable space shuttle was being Scrapped in 1967 while STS-1 (Columbia) didn’t launch until 1981…

science.ksc.nasa.gov...

There is nothing “ufo” like about our current shuttle, either, it is a very traditional looking aircraft.

The F-117A Stealth Fighter does not seem to incorporate any “disc” technologies/designs in it, either. It is an incredibly angular craft.

www.airforce-technology.com...

The Avrocar was a such a “wonderful” device that the TWO existing models sit in museums as curiosities. It received no further funding from anybody, and nobody seems too interested in trying to build more. The thing was incredibly difficult to pilot and didn’t even make a very good hovercraft…

www.avrocar.com...

If any government anywhere has a fully functioning circular aircraft I find it hard to believe that they wouldn’t proudly display it. If a circular design was actually as stable and groovy as the Picket story made it out to be I’m surprised that the private sector hasn’t experimented with it more.

My experience with model planes and model rockets has led me to believe that saucer shaped craft using conventional means of locomotion are incredibly Unstable… which is probably why everybody has been using the more traditional type wing for about 100 years now.

I found the show fun to watch but pretty bogus. It’s like the Roswell reports… “no, really, This is the final report, um, well, no, actually, THIS is the final report, um, well, no, This is What Really Happened, no, really, truly, Believe Us, We’re Reputable, this is what Really Truly Happened,… Honest, you can Trust Us… this time.” *laughs*

ya, right.



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 05:54 PM
link   
The Avrocar was a lesson in futility. Although I did learn some new information about the designer, the weight to power ratio reduced it to a foot note in Designs Gone Bad history. With todays fly by wire and composite construction technologies, there's probably a remote chance the Avrocar would get airbourne, but its noise and slow speed would still render it very unpractical.

The problem with that show was its insistance on some sort of uber UFO science the Germans were supposed to have had. It was elluded to throughout the show. I guess they had to have something about UFOs to mention. It's clear that all the designs illustrated used conventional propulsion and construction techniques.



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 03:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by sigung86

Meh??? Aye 'n 'tis tha saim Univarse, Ya Bludy Pagan!!!!




Was that a crappy attempt at typing an irish accent?, i can spell you know, and its "in the same universe, you bloody pagan" fyi



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 10:51 PM
link   


Last night, I was watching a show on UFOs, either on A&E or History Channel, sorry... Don't remember exactly. At any rate, it was addressing the fact that UFOs are government/military items and not necessarily from planet Munimula.


Your statement is incorrect. It has never been proven fact that UFOs are all government projects. Only a small number of them have been.



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 11:24 PM
link   
He clearly wrote Not Necessarily. You write only a small number have been. That is more debatable and can be discussed to no end without conclusion.

We can state that there is small percentage of UFO cases that remain unexplained after many years. However being unexplained does not present proof of extra terrestrial origin. Back to square one, to this day we still lack emperical evidence or proof that these sightings represent extra terrestrial vehicles.



posted on Nov, 16 2005 @ 11:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by nullster
He clearly wrote Not Necessarily. You write only a small number have been. That is more debatable and can be discussed to no end without conclusion.

We can state that there is small percentage of UFO cases that remain unexplained after many years. However being unexplained does not present proof of extra terrestrial origin. Back to square one, to this day we still lack emperical evidence or proof that these sightings represent extra terrestrial vehicles.


The percentage is not as small as you think. Depending on whose investigating, the unexplained rate can be anywhere from 10-30%.

For example, Blue book claimed that out of 12,000 cases, only about 800 were unexplained. Truth is, many of the "explained" sightings were given most dubious explainations that stretched the limits of the investigator's credibility. The true number of unexplained were higher.

An unexplained does not mean ET, but it doesnt have to. Its not one single incident that has made people believe they were ET, it was the sum of many unexplainable incidents with characteristics of superior tech that no nation on earth has dupicated or come close to. If no one here makes them, then who does?



posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 12:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf

Originally posted by nullster
He clearly wrote Not Necessarily. You write only a small number have been. That is more debatable and can be discussed to no end without conclusion.

We can state that there is small percentage of UFO cases that remain unexplained after many years. However being unexplained does not present proof of extra terrestrial origin. Back to square one, to this day we still lack emperical evidence or proof that these sightings represent extra terrestrial vehicles.


The percentage is not as small as you think. Depending on whose investigating, the unexplained rate can be anywhere from 10-30%.

For example, Blue book claimed that out of 12,000 cases, only about 800 were unexplained. Truth is, many of the "explained" sightings were given most dubious explainations that stretched the limits of the investigator's credibility. The true number of unexplained were higher.

An unexplained does not mean ET, but it doesnt have to. Its not one single incident that has made people believe they were ET, it was the sum of many unexplainable incidents with characteristics of superior tech that no nation on earth has dupicated or come close to. If no one here makes them, then who does?


I guess, after the original show I watched, that I'm curious as to whether or not we have developed saucers that can take to space and travel extremely quickly... Further speculation makes me wonder ... If we have them, why so?

We can keep them top secret if no one else has them and pull them out if and when Russia, China, India, put your favorite "other guys" here... ever come up with their versions of the flying saucers.

Is it possible that we have them, and in conjunction with Space Defense Initiative (Star Wars) that we are in the midst of some type of interstellar/interplanetary war?

As wierd as these thoughts are, these are the things I ponder regarding the original post.



posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 12:48 AM
link   
To say the Air Force has Carte Blanche with respect to deception, is like telling a person who's standing in the path of a tidal wave they may experience "some" moisture. It is an unsurpassed understatement. Defensive Counter Information (DCI) blankets all military and civilian Air Force personnel, members of the Air Force Reserve, Air National Guard, DoD contractors, and individuals or activities under legal agreement or obligation to the Department of the Air Force. As stated in the Directive: "This policy directive provides guidance for planning and conducting defensive counter-information (DCI) operations, the aerospace function through which the Air Force employs its defensive Information Operations (IO) capabilities."

For those of you feeling somewhat left out by the previous statement, don't be, you have not been forgotten. Yes, John Q Public is subject to direct enforcement measures at the hands of the Air Force in their effort to protect sensitive and classified information. The Directive reveals: "The identification and protection of sensitive and classified information is required by 'public law,' Executive Order, and regulation." Moreover: "The Air Force will employ comprehensive, integrated defensive counter-information (DCI) operations to protect and defend Air Force information and information systems."

Information systems does not pertain to just computers, it is a blanket term used to include documentation as well. This is quite apparent in this sentence taken from AFPD 10-20: "Effective DCI requires the full integration of physical, personnel, industrial, and professional security (e.g., document classification and control) measures." Has anyone ever turned in a FOIA request only to have it returned as: "No information exists," or; "The information requested is a matter of National Security and therefore not subject to release," or (my favorite); "We can neither confirm or deny the existence ..." In effect, they can play "the shell game" with documentation until the cows come home. Finally, last, but certainly not least, is this: "Air Force DCI capabilities include information assurance, operations security (OPSEC), counter-intelligence, counter-deception, counter-psychological operations, and electronic protection."

Once again from AFPD 10-20: OPSEC analysis leads to identification of additional critical information and operational indicators which may be of value to an adversary." There is no doubt this includes alien technology and or, methodology. Indeed, this - from a Military perspective - is the heart and soul of the matter.

I was going to plumb Air Force Instruction 16-701 (Special Access Programs) or SAP, Air Force Instruction 10-1101 (Operations Security) another derivative of OPSEC, and Air Force Instruction 14-302 (Control, Protection, and Dissemination of Sensitive Compartmented Information). However, all these documents are protocols developed to define how the information shell game is played. They are simply variations on the theme that governs Officially Sanctioned Deception Programs.

In order for people to better understand the UFO enigma, they need to understand how and why the government has kept this information guarded so closely. Once the public comes to understand "plausible deniability" and "Officially Sanctioned Deception Programs," they can then, and only then, begin to better understand the evidence before them. Until this happens, the public will continue to be at the mercy of Officially Sanctioned Deception Programs.



posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 04:59 AM
link   
Hello




Originally posted by nullster
The Avrocar was a lesson in futility. Although I did learn some new information about the designer, the weight to power ratio reduced it to a foot note in Designs Gone Bad history. With todays fly by wire and composite construction technologies, there's probably a remote chance the Avrocar would get airbourne, but its noise and slow speed would still render it very unpractical.


To me, the Avrocar was clearly a disinformation attempt. Make people believe US is not able to build flying saucers, while secret studies are done elsewhere...




Originally posted by nullster
We can state that there is small percentage of UFO cases that remain unexplained after many years. However being unexplained does not present proof of extra terrestrial origin. Back to square one, to this day we still lack emperical evidence or proof that these sightings represent extra terrestrial vehicles.


Have a look at my post in this thread. We have hundreds of testimonies from third century before J.C. to nineteen century. I let you make your own conclusion.



posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 06:12 AM
link   
Fact of the matter is UFO`s have been seen alll through our history, even drawings have been made by our ancestors in al size and shapes.
Im sure goverment is working on secret aircraft in the so called blackprojects, and there is a pretty good chance they are backenginering technology of supposedly crashed ufo`s and have adapted this in their new space/aircrafts.
And even if they did entirely made this technology themselves doesnt have to mean that there are no spacecraft with extra-terrestrials coming to earth.

So i think one theory doesnt disclude the other, these are very compatible in my opinion., its not at all that black and white.



posted on Nov, 17 2005 @ 08:02 AM
link   
The LRV was probably a strategic craft to have nuclear capability in orbit, it was obsolete due to ICBM's, so it was probably never used. However these other saucer type craft, if they existed, must have served another purpose. I still wonder what it was that they were designed to defend against. I still need more proof that they actually existed. It does not make sense that they would have craft of this type, and at the same time have programs like the X-Planes.

One reason that popped into my head, was could these be recovered/captured UFO's that were disguised to look like USAF craft? They obviously do not fly by conventional means, and very few were made, if any. Maybe the propulsion systems could not be duplicated, so they slap on a cover to learn how they operate?


I know I'm reaching.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join