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.

 

What did we know and when did we know it?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 26 2005 @ 01:28 PM
link   
This is an open question to anyone with a general (or specific) science background.

In what year (or decade) could our science (public or government) have been
advanced enough to design, manufacture, and successfully test fly an aircraft
with all four of the following capabilities:

1) the ability to achieve altitudes over 50,000'
2) the ability to reach speeds over 600 mph
3) the ability to withstand stresses over 20 g's
4) the ability to hover

The inclusion of a biological payload is not required.

The purpose of this question is to attempt to establish a time stamp.
Any aircraft exhibiting all four of these traits witnessed after the
established time period could be of terrestrial origin,
any witnessed before it could not be.




posted on Dec, 26 2005 @ 04:01 PM
link   
Howdy, thanks for your interesting post.

Even a perfect scientific answer to your question to give a "time stamp", may not be the truthful answer.
One example is The Galactic Federation posts from Sheldan Nidle.
Even though my opinion is that he or whoever is channeling the information to him is talking mostly garbage or some truth mixed up so much it is garbage... He often say's we humans used to have an advanced civilization on planet Earth and we were invaded 13,000 years ago.
True or not, according to the Drake Equation, it has happened OUT THERE somewhere in the vast universe. So it might be a waste of time trying to put a "time stamp" on things like 'were the Wright brothers the first to fly', etc, if one is seeking possible truths of the existence of 100's of different types of intelligent extraterrestrials in our Milky Way Galaxy and beyond.
One of my questions might be... "roughly how many humans were talking about extraterrestrials before the Wright brothers ?"

(I'll probably get a scientific answer like... 42 ! ) LOL
More details would make a nice change.

Have any of you read the book "Left at East Gate" ?



posted on Dec, 26 2005 @ 08:20 PM
link   
Here's how I'm figuring it:

in the 1860's a bullet could go over 600 mph but it couldn't hover,

in the 1890's a dirigible could hover but not go 600 mph or take 20 g's,

in WW1 an artillery shell could go over 50,000' in altitude, exceed 600 mph, and withstand over 20 g's but not hover,

in the 1970's a helicopter could hover and exceed 40,000' but not take 20 g's or exceed 600 mph.

Prior to the Vietnam war, NOTHING MAN-MADE could do ALL FOUR THINGS.

Therefore, prior to the Vietnam war:

1) sightings of aircraft that could were hoaxes.
2) sightings of aircraft that could were honest mistakes.
3) sightings of aircraft that could were sightings of extra-terrestrial craft.

[the following was added via edit]

After the year 2000:

1) sightings of aircraft that could were hoaxes.
2) sightings of aircraft that could were honest mistakes.
3) sightings of aircraft that could were sightings of USA-manufactured airspacecraft.


[edit on 26-12-2005 by Theox]



posted on Dec, 26 2005 @ 10:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Theox
Any aircraft exhibiting all four of these traits witnessed after the
established time period could be of terrestrial origin,
any witnessed before it could not be.


This is assuming, of course, that the four traits were accurately measured, with repeatable results.

"Witnessed" does not make it automatically true.



posted on Dec, 26 2005 @ 11:13 PM
link   
Thanks Theox. Very interesting.

And, Rand, your signature picture gave me a smile.

Also your signature quote... "The Wright brothers were not the first to fly. They were the First To Land."

In fact, there was a documentary on TV recently stating that a New Zealander achieved what the Wright Brothers achieved and before them.
I'll share more details if you can't find anything about it online.

Anyway, personally, I'm more interested in the size of the universe and what's happening in it.

(Because I was raised on Lost in Space, Dr Who, and HitchHikers Guide to the Galaxy)



posted on Dec, 27 2005 @ 08:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by rand

Originally posted by Theox
Any aircraft exhibiting all four of these traits witnessed after the
established time period could be of terrestrial origin,
any witnessed before it could not be.


This is assuming, of course, that the four traits were accurately measured, with repeatable results.

"Witnessed" does not make it automatically true.


"Witnessed" does not make it automatically true.

I agree completely. That's why both groups of three possibilities contain:

1) sightings of aircraft that could were hoaxes.
2) sightings of aircraft that could were honest mistakes.

Constder the early 1950's Washington DC event.
I would say that the eye witness sightings, radar reports, and photographs were:

1) hoaxed
2) honest mistakes
3) of extra-terrestrial craft

and NOT:

3) USA airspacecraft



posted on Dec, 27 2005 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Theox

After the year 2000:

1) sightings of aircraft that could were hoaxes.
2) sightings of aircraft that could were honest mistakes.
3) sightings of aircraft that could were sightings of USA-manufactured airspacecraft.



So by this you are saying that after 2000 there is no possible chance a sighting could be ET aircraft?



posted on Dec, 27 2005 @ 03:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by noslenwerd
So by this you are saying that after 2000 there is no possible chance a sighting could be ET aircraft?


No, after 2000 sightings of craft that defy conventional logic or physics
would now simply include the possibility that they may be man-made.

FOR INSTANCE, the big flying triangles. We've had very large
lighter-than-air craft since the 1930's .

Hindenburg LZ-129

800' long, 135' diameter

total gas capacity 7,000,000 cu. ft.

240 tons = gross lift

130 tons = ship's weight

110 tons = useful lift

Since the 1940's we've had Magnetron tubes and amplifiers,
NOW we have ion drive engines, we have large light-weight
self-contained silent power supplies, and maybe most importantly,
we have a HUGE national economy and military budget (courtesy of
President Reagan). Big lighter-than-air craft could easily lift this kind
of stuff, and they're relatively cheap and easy to build.
I'm NOT stating that big flying triangles ARE man-made,
only that some or all of them witnessed after 2000, could be.



posted on Dec, 27 2005 @ 03:45 PM
link   
my apologies, the way i read it was that you were saying those were the only 3 possibilities


reading > me



posted on Dec, 27 2005 @ 04:04 PM
link   
1969...

en.wikipedia.org...

this qualifies under all requirements you laid out except for the g limitations....8gs.

where does the 20 g requirement come from?



posted on Dec, 27 2005 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by snafu7700

where does the 20 g requirement come from?


20 g's was chosen as it's a relatively low number compared to eye witness
and radar accounts of ufo performance characteristics, but sufficiently large
to be beyond the performance of our known stuff.

Air speed vs turn radius calculations:

1/4 mile radius turn at 600 mph = 18 g's

100 yard radius turn at 300 mph = 20 g's

30' radius turn at 100 mph = 22 g's

at 20 mph the force on a bicycle wheel at the rim is about 25 g's



posted on Dec, 29 2005 @ 01:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by CYCdroid
...there was a documentary on TV recently stating that a New Zealander achieved what the Wright Brothers achieved and before them.



Accounts by witnesses of the flight vary, from "50 to 400 yards in length", but it seems most likely that it was around 350 yards long, and ending prematurely when the flying machine landed in a large hedge...
www.ctie.monash.edu.au...

Still sounds a bit short of a controlled landing



Theox:
Consider the early 1950's Washington DC event.
I would say that the eye witness sightings, radar reports, and photographs were:
1) hoaxed
2) honest mistakes
3) of extra-terrestrial craft
and NOT:
3) USA airspacecraft


And why not
4) USA aircraft

General Hoyt Vandenberg said bluntly that the US did not have "flying saucers", but he stopped short of saying "they're not ours", and never mentioned more conventional craft at all.

The top-secret Beacon Hill Study published in 1952 laid out plans for the use of aerial surveillance. What's the best way to demonstrate the capabilities of a class of covert aircraft to Pentagon officials, the Administration, and even members of Congress?

AND/OR

Gen. Vandenberg had persuaded MIT to study early-warning radar two years earlier, but there was still no comprehensive radar coverage. What's the best way to demonstrate the weaknesses in the LASHUP radar system which was just being completed in the summer 1952?

The CIA used precisely such a cover story to conceal the actual purpose of the U-2 program and was not averse to allowing the American public to believe that the U-2s and subsequently developed secret spyplanes, the Lockheed A-12 and SR-71 Blackbirds in particular, which some Americans had inadvertently observed flying over the United States, were in fact interstellar space vehicles piloted by extraterrestrials.




top topics



 
0

log in

join