Government UFO Projects, page 1
Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times


reply posted on 16-11-2005 @ 02:23 PM by Hal9000
I also heard the story and saw these photos on the *chuckle* disinformation *chuckle* History Channel. But looking at the aerodynamics of the saucer, I have to question whether it is even capable of flying like a conventional aircraft. If you look at the cross-section of the wing from this drawing from the link you provided.



It does not have the shape of a normal wing, and I don’t think would create lift. I also do not see any conventional means of propulsion.



www.aeromuseum.org...

Though I am no expert, I think you should have posted this in the Aircraft Projects forum. I am sure there are many experts there that have seen these before. I would also like to note, that they mentioned in the show that these pictures are not actual photos, and I guess there are no de-classified government documents to support that these craft existed. They are very cool looking though.


[edit on 11/16/2005 by Hal9000]



reply posted on 16-11-2005 @ 03:03 PM by nullster
Originally posted by Event Horizon
The USAF is just continuing to hold its 50 year long breath until it can one day say, "see, there are not flying saucers, it has been us the whole time" but we will all know its a bunch of bullsheet.


There is very good reason why the US Government will never disclose UFO inspired operations. One has to do with the level of liability of radioactive exposure to civilians. There are many accounts of radioactive contamination at crash and landing sites. What a relief for those involved that the public would front a UFO crash or landing to their benefit. How convenient that the Military was always able to canvas a UFO site so quickly. That's too convenient. That's some interesting dissinformation if you ask me. How do you sue an alien for radioactive poisening?

We developed Nuclear propulsion for aircraft and the US Government already unclassified plans for nuclear powered vehicles designed for use durring the Cold War. Popular Science even did a piece on it which has since been removed from their site.

Here's more from the Popular Science Article

Crash Debris
The engineering study obtained by POPULAR MECHANICS contains language that describes a re-entry heating test that, at the time, could have been accomplished by only a high-altitude drop of a flying prototype. A further indication that the LRV flew comes from a retired Air Force contractor. He tells PM he personally saw a craft fitting the description of the LRV at a Florida base that he had been visiting on unrelated business in the late 1960s. However, what is by far the most compelling evidence that the LRV, or a flying prototype, was actually built comes from Australia.



[edit on 16-11-2005 by nullster]


reply posted on 17-11-2005 @ 02:51 AM by Manincloak
Originally posted by PKD


Computer generated yes, but it looks soooo cool!!!!


Ummm, as for USAF soucers, well I believe they are all just reverse-engineered versions of ET crafts.



reply posted on 17-11-2005 @ 09:56 AM by Desert Dawg
Originally posted by Hal9000
But looking at the aerodynamics of the saucer, I have to question whether it is even capable of flying like a conventional aircraft. If you look at the cross-section of the wing from this drawing from the link you provided.



It does not have the shape of a normal wing, and I don’t think would create lift. I also do not see any conventional means of propulsion.




Symmetrical airfoils fly just fine.
Low speeds take a higher angle of attack, but they will fly.
Faster they go the more efficient they are.

Take note of model aircraft with symmetrical airfoils.
Designed for stunt work and inverted flight - for the most part - shows them to be equally efficient in normal or inverted flight.

The old comment about enough horsepower will fly anything has been proven true by modelers who flew a hollow core door with fairly powerful engines - considering their size - and added aerodynamic controls.
(Elevator, rudder etc.)


reply posted on 17-11-2005 @ 11:22 AM by torbjon
I don’t get it…

The LRV diagram shown in this thread has conventional “rocket motors” in it… wouldn’t those leave a vapor trail if used within our atmosphere?

It also has “fins” on it and is not a true saucer shape… it is flat across the back.

The Vought V-173 / XF5U-1 pictured in this thread is also not a true saucer shape (flat across the front) and it too has fins.

The images of the un-named “flying saucers are real” Jack Picket craft is more saucer shaped than the others, but it has a very standard looking airplane fuselage running from the center to the circumference and a fin, giving it a very decided frontness and backness…

All of these models seem to have a “front” and a “back” and a “fin” which implies a preferred direction of travel… none of those vehicles are going to move in a direction contrary to the fins.

Yet “classical” flying saucers don’t seem to exhibit any of these qualities. No front, no back, and no fins. They seem to be able to hover, accelerate in any direction, make sudden course changes, go from a stand still to a zillion miles an hour in the blink of an eye, etc. etc. None of these craft seem capable of performing the most standard of flying saucer maneuvers and they seem to be powered by engines that would either make a lot of noise and/or leave some type of vapor / exhaust trail…

And if the saucer shape is truly a wonderful design for aircraft, why don’t we see more of them? Why aren’t other countries or the private sector incorporating the saucer shape into their aircraft?
Pages:     ^^TOP^^



Aliens Among Us ...Video
  Posted 7 days ago with 65 member flags
Moon: inexplicable phenomena. Luna Cognita video.
  Posted 15 days ago with 60 member flags
UFOs \'Escort\' Mexican Aircraft - Radar Confirmed.
  Posted 10 days ago with 31 member flags
The Dyatlov Pass Incident--Russia\'s Mountain of Death
  Posted 17 days ago with 28 member flags
The Aurora, Texas UFO Incident (1897)
  Posted 1 days ago with 25 member flags