Mystery Plane Identified (theory)!

page: 11
4
<< 8  9  10    12  13 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 4 2007 @ 04:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
I am currently looking for my SR-71 file yfxxx. Exactly what is it that you are having a problem with? That the A-11 was ordered? Or the number of the A-11's? Or that Col. Brewer authorized it?

I don't care who signed it, but I want to see first-hand evidence for the number and name of the aircraft. You said you have a copy of this order, and I'd like to see it. I just don't take your word for it, that's all.


If you can be more specific maybe I can help you.

No, thanks. Just show that you actually have a copy of an official order for "A-11" aircraft.


You seem to be antagonistic in each of your posts. Is there a problem?

No, except that I won't believe a single word of you without backup from independent sources


Regards
yf




posted on Apr, 4 2007 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by undo
The sighting would've been isolated to military families and their dependants mostly, because there weren't really any buildings on that side of the airfield that civilians would need to use.

Besides, they know there will always be people like you that wouldn't believe such a report anyway. So, a rare visit, for purposes of a bombing run, would not be a security issue. What's the military dependent going to say, that I haven't already.

Military security doesn't work this way. It's a fact that the families of personnel, who work on classified projects, are not supposed to know details about this work. So flying an aircraft, whose existence is classified, in front of housings for "military families" is a definite no-no.


DON'T call me a liar.

I didn't. You only forwarded a witness's story, and I pointed out a severe implausibility in this story.

Regards
yf



posted on Apr, 4 2007 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by yfxxx

I didn't. You only forwarded a witness's story, and I pointed out a severe implausibility in this story.

Regards
yf


The witness was my husband, who is my other half. I don't consider him a liar. Been married to him for 26 years, and have never known him to make up anything and have never heard him mention seeing any ufos or other unusual craft. that he saw this one thing, several years ago, and that he doesn't come to places like this to get some kind of recognition for it, has no plans of speaking about it on the radio or writing about it or anything else of that nature, leaves one glaring hole in your argument - he has no reason, whatsoever to lie about it. no reason to make it up. we weren't bored the day he told me about it. he's a very normal guy. he's not anti-NASA. he's career air force. 21+ years, and still active duty. he was completely sincere about it. i asked a battery of questions, such as "are you sure you weren't sleeping or dreaming the incident?" and i grilled him for other details. i'm satisfed with his answers. i wouldn't have shared it with you, if i thought he was kidding, pulling my leg, exaggerating or otherwise trying to pull the wool over my eyes. he has no reason to lie to me about it either. no reason.

you know, eventually, you're gonna have to start giving your fellow humans some credit for having honorable intentions and honest words. i realize not everyone is trustworthy, but the sheer volume of people having these kind of sightings should be enough to impress on your mind that they can't all be hallucinating.



posted on Apr, 4 2007 @ 04:53 PM
link   
undo, one of our problems here is the sheer number of hoaxes and BS threads that have been perpetrated. Not saying that you are trying anything like that, and I'm not saying anything against your story. But over the couple years I've been here there have been quite a few threads started where the person posting always seems to either lose the evidence, or is just "a day or two" away from posting the picture that will blow us out of the water, and then suddenly they "lost" the picture, or they "ruined it" trying to blur faces, or some other excuse. Because of that people around here tend to take things with a BIG grain of salt, and lean more towards the hoax side of things faster than believing.



posted on Apr, 4 2007 @ 05:50 PM
link   
If the phoenix lights were the same type of craft, they let an entire city see it. So i don't think it's that much of a stretch of the envelope to consider a military craft, could drop in over the base, go along the flight line, simulate a bombing run and go back up again before it even made it to the other end of the base. They don't build these things and leave them in the hangars. They use 'em. Not to mention, the flight line at Hill AFB is over 4700 ft above sea level and quite a bit higher up than the valley area where the bulk of the civilian population exists. Because it sounds to be a stealth type of craft, no one would've heard it coming till it started the bombing run, anyway.



posted on Apr, 5 2007 @ 05:03 AM
link   
Several years ago I was having a conversation with my then-employer. She was telling me of some friends of hers, who lived in remote North Wales, were plagued with house electrical problems - blown fuses, tripped breakers and such. Apparently, these occurred "When the big, loud grey triangle-shaped 'planes flew over..."


I should point out that she didn't see this as particularly extraordinary, nor did she know of my interest of the subject.

[edit on 5-4-2007 by Snoogans]



posted on Apr, 5 2007 @ 08:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by undo
If the phoenix lights were the same type of craft, they let an entire city see it.

There is much evidence that the "Phoenix lights" ( en.wikipedia.org... ) were nothing more than flares. So they are probably not the best example for your case.


So i don't think it's that much of a stretch of the envelope to consider a military craft, could drop in over the base, go along the flight line, simulate a bombing run and go back up again before it even made it to the other end of the base.

It is a stretch, when compared to the effort the USAF made to keep the existence of the F-117 secret before 1988. They didn't fly it in front of military personnel who was not cleared to know. And an aircraft with the capabilities described by your husband would be way beyond anything even imaginable by "conventional" science and engineering, so that displaying it almost casually in front of onlookers is a really big stretch.


They don't build these things and leave them in the hangars. They use 'em. Not to mention, the flight line at Hill AFB is over 4700 ft above sea level and quite a bit higher up than the valley area where the bulk of the civilian population exists. Because it sounds to be a stealth type of craft, no one would've heard it coming till it started the bombing run, anyway.

"Stealth" does not mean "inaudible".

Anyway, was the incident "talk of the day" on the base in any way? I.e., did your husband ask other base personnel about the aircraft, and if so, what was he told? Did he have to sign any non-disclosure statements (ok, apparently not, since he told you about it)?

Regards
yf



posted on Apr, 5 2007 @ 08:38 AM
link   
I apologize to you all for the thread interuption, but I have gone back over the thread to find the original topic and am lost.

So far this is what I am understanding.

1. The existence of the A 12 is being disputed??
2. John Lear is claiming to have lots of proof of orders but not providing anything yet?
3.Yfxx and Undo are having a debate over the possibility of secret flights over Hill AFB that military families may have seen?
4. A 11 existence is being disputed?

Is this a fairly accurate description of the thread at this time?? I keep seeing the thread title, "Mystery plane identified (theory)" pop up in the forum page but am just wondering if everybody is talking about one plane or many or if there have been too many tangents created now?? It's just hard to follow as a late looker is all. Thanks for any clarification!


Peace, Mondo



posted on Apr, 5 2007 @ 09:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mondogiwa
1. The existence of the A 12 is being disputed??


Someone suggested that the A-12 may have been the aircraft seen over Hill AFB. I pointed out that the A-12 never existed, its not being disputed, its just that officially it never flew. Obviously we're talking about the General Dynamics A-12 Avenger II not the Lockheed A-12 OXCART.



posted on Apr, 5 2007 @ 10:35 AM
link   
Apologies to Mondogiwa. Yes, this thread is twisting and turning all over the place. I guess that is why they call it a "thread."

To drag it back to the A-11 issue, I went through some of my Blackbird material. I didn't have time to go through everything, but I managed to skim through a couple thousand pages of declassified documents (mostly from the CIA).

None of them used the term A-11, just A-12 for the OXCART aircraft and AF-12 for the interceptor (later redesignated YF-12A). The Lyndon B. Johnson Libraray did have a summary of National Security Council Meeting regarding president Johnson's public announcement of the "A-11" in February 1964, but that didn't solve the question John Lear raised about procurement of the aircraft.

Eventually, I found a formerly SECRET memorandum (OXC-0945, Copy No. 3, dated 7 November 1960) from Richard M. Bissell (Deputy Dirrector of Plans, CIA) to the chief of the CIA Development Projects Division's Development Branch. The memo served to formally confirm several decisions regarding procurement of the OXCART and AF-12, including a an agreement to make AF-12 #7 available to the Air Force. The most important paragraph reads as follows:

"With respect to the number of A-12 aircraft to be procured we have narrowed the choice down to 11 or 12. If you think necessary, confirm to Kelly Johnson that he is to add on at least two AF-12 at the end of the series, which would leave us with 11 (the original 12 minus #7). I would like one more conference with you before deciding whether we add a third to replace #7. If we follow the latter course, #1 through #6 and #8 through #13 inclusive will be A-12 and #7, 14, and 15 will be AF-12."



posted on Apr, 5 2007 @ 03:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mondogiwa
I apologize to you all for the thread interuption, but I have gone back over the thread to find the original topic and am lost.

Is this a fairly accurate description of the thread at this time?? I keep seeing the thread title, "Mystery plane identified (theory)" pop up in the forum page but am just wondering if everybody is talking about one plane or many or if there have been too many tangents created now?? It's just hard to follow as a late looker is all. Thanks for any clarification!


Peace, Mondo


Mondogiwa,

Hi, I started this thread so maybe I can help. Threads are an evolution of a topic. They go in all kinds of unexpected directions once they are released by their origional authors.

As to the question how did we get to the A-11? Allow me to explain:

When I created this thread several months back, I set out to prove that the common "F-19" model design was based on a real airplane. The theory was that it is a spy plane that Evolved from the Lockheed SR-71 Blackbird!

Now as we are discussing the history and evolution of the Blackbird Spy Plane, the group has traced the Blackbird back to its roots to study how it evoved and changed over the yesr to see if the theory could work.

The Blackbird Spyplane was born at the Lockheed Skunkworks with a series of internal design studies code named ARCANGLE. Each design study was given an ID Number A-1 through A-12. The A-12 was the final design that became the basic Blackbird Spyplane.

The A-12 Blackbird was later refined into a 2-seat aircraft called the SR-71 Blackbird. If there is anything to my theory, the supporing evidence will be hidden within the design evolution of the Blackbird Spyplane.

So, anything relevent to the developmental history of the Blackbird Spyplane is helping to build on the idea this thread set out to explore. Hope that help everyone a bit!

Tim

[edit on 4/5/2007 by Ghost01]



posted on Apr, 5 2007 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by yfxxx

There is much evidence that the "Phoenix lights" ( en.wikipedia.org... ) were nothing more than flares. So they are probably not the best example for your case.

It is a stretch, when compared to the effort the USAF made to keep the existence of the F-117 secret before 1988. They didn't fly it in front of military personnel who was not cleared to know. And an aircraft with the capabilities described by your husband would be way beyond anything even imaginable by "conventional" science and engineering, so that displaying it almost casually in front of onlookers is a really big stretch.


They don't build these things and leave them in the hangars. They use 'em. Not to mention, the flight line at Hill AFB is over 4700 ft above sea level and quite a bit higher up than the valley area where the bulk of the civilian population exists. Because it sounds to be a stealth type of craft, no one would've heard it coming till it started the bombing run, anyway.

"Stealth" does not mean "inaudible".

Anyway, was the incident "talk of the day" on the base in any way? I.e., did your husband ask other base personnel about the aircraft, and if so, what was he told? Did he have to sign any non-disclosure statements (ok, apparently not, since he told you about it)?

Regards
yf


Well I read and listened to the first hand accounts of the witnesses , and many said the thing flew over their heads. How this could be possible while the flares were still on the mountain ridge (whch has a base behind it, kinda lending to the theory that it might've been one of those planes my husband also saw), is also asking me to ignore the eyewitness testimony in favor of the very guys who would have the most vested interest in keeping it from
being some big sensation. i mean, how else do you fly over a major city in a huge advanced top secret aircraft and not arouse suspicion in the minds of even the skeptics, if you don't concoct some kind of story. those stories are for people such as yourself, who need to know that everything is hunky dory until told to believe otherwise. it's okay. that's a very comfortable and sensible position to be in. i should probably be more like you in that regard. only problem is, i started studying and well, you know what happens when you start studying. you get ideas, theories, and dots start connecting and things start congealing and then, whammo, you're a fringer before ya know it. : )

will ask hubby your question, when he gets home.



posted on Apr, 5 2007 @ 04:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mondogiwa
I apologize to you all for the thread interuption, but I have gone back over the thread to find the original topic and am lost.

Howdy Mondo, I'm not surprised that your lost as I'm bordering on that as well and I've been activite in the thread for 5 pages lol.


So far this is what I am understanding.
1. The existence of the A 12 is being disputed??

The only dispute at this time about the A-12 Oxcart is its roots and gathering evidence for its design etc. The A-12 Avenger II is being disputed over if it has anything to do with a post by Undo that her husband may have seen. Its fact that to the public and most of the military it the avenger never flew so either they made more then one and scaled it to huge size (which can be almost 100% ruled out) or it was something else real or fake.


2. John Lear is claiming to have lots of proof of orders but not providing anything yet?[

John has misplaced his A-1/A-12/SR-71 files so a dead end from him in that regard. Also he had commented on the F-117 being a cover/side project for the F-19 which was going on at the sametime as the F-20 was being designated. His comments though havent been completely backed up as they are people he has talked too that wont write anything down or be interviewed so its a lil hard to move forward on his theory in this as well.

3.Yfxx and Undo are having a debate over the possibility of secret flights over Hill AFB that military families may have seen?
pretty much it would be helpfull to build on the story.

4. A 11 existence is being disputed?
Nope not at all, just talking about it and getting images and papers.

[edit on 22/08/06 by Canada_EH]



posted on Apr, 5 2007 @ 04:43 PM
link   
Okay, hubby's home. This is his answer:

"I was the air field entry control point guard. Ihad to stand guard at the control point, to assure no simulated terrorists or enemy combatants entered the airfield. It was an additional duty, at the time. I knew it was War Games time, but no one told me about the Bombing Run by this particular aircraft. the windows for all facilities had black plastic bags taped over them. And everyone inside the buildings, were directed to take cover under their desks. Most everyone would've not been aware of it at all, as they were under blackout conditions, under their desks. I just happened to see it because i had been tasked to do the guard duty.

i didn't have to sign anything, nor was i made aware of it being a part of the War Games. in fact, i think it might have been a surprise to everyone intimately involved, who saw it. maybe it even bypassed the control tower with stealth. i don't know. "

if this doesn't read exactly how i originally presented it, its because i was just trying to recall his story from my memory. and my memory can be a little leaky. i thought he originally said, he had nothing to do with the war games. i guess what he meant was, just that it was a surprise to see the bombing run as he hadn't been told about it. not much he coulda done, had he been told and he thinks it might've been a total surprise to everyone involved. since thepeople who were going to see this thing were spread out at different key areas of the base, they might never encounter one anotehr or even know they were one of the people who saw it, so that they could exchange stories about the event. just smart planning, i think.



[edit on 5-4-2007 by undo]



posted on Apr, 5 2007 @ 04:48 PM
link   
Is it possible to get a wingspan in ft that your husband thinks it was did he see any exhaust or cockpit or did it really black out the sky? For my self I've seen the B-52 a big bomber and it did not black out the sky at even 500/1000 ft. and it passed right over me. colour markings did it have roundels etc?

a sketch would be killer if he could.

[edit on 22/08/06 by Canada_EH]



posted on Apr, 5 2007 @ 04:52 PM
link   
he says it wasn't a shiny black, more of a gray black.
no color markings.
no exhaust. wingspan MUCH bigger than a B 52, he says.
he doesn't recall seeing a cockpit.

[edit on 5-4-2007 by undo]



posted on Apr, 5 2007 @ 05:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Canada_EH
Is it possible to get a wingspan in ft that your husband thinks it was did he see any exhaust or cockpit or did it really black out the sky? For my self I've seen the B-52 a big bomber and it did not black out the sky at even 500/1000 ft. and it passed right over me. colour markings did it have roundels etc?

a sketch would be killer if he could.

[edit on 22/08/06 by Canada_EH]





Canda_EH I am amused at your frantic grasps at the conventional. It was not. It was one of our very advanced anti-grav vehicles, probably several hundred feet long. Anti-grav does not make any noise. No windows would be visible. Any roundels? Ha! Come with us to the 21st century. I love it.

Exhaust? HaHa. A B-52 big? HAHAHA? Keep 'em coming Canada_EH you are hilarious!!!



posted on Apr, 5 2007 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by undo
Okay, hubby's home. This is his answer:

"I was the air field entry control point guard. Ihad to stand guard at the control point, to assure no simulated terrorists or enemy combatants entered the airfield. It was an additional duty, at the time. I knew it was War Games time, but no one told me about the Bombing Run by this particular aircraft. the windows for all facilities had black plastic bags taped over them. And everyone inside the buildings, were directed to take cover under their desks. Most everyone would've not been aware of it at all, as they were under blackout conditions, under their desks. I just happened to see it because i had been tasked to do the guard duty.

i didn't have to sign anything, nor was i made aware of it being a part of the War Games. in fact, i think it might have been a surprise to everyone intimately involved, who saw it. maybe it even bypassed the control tower with stealth. i don't know. "


Thank you, undo (and "hubby"
)! The quick reply is appreciated.

I'm a physicist, and I know a bit what's possible and what's not (even for "aliens"
). Therefore I don't have an obvious explanation for your husband's report, and instead of presenting some unverifiable theories I can think of, I'll just leave it at that.

Thanks again for your help!

Regards
yf



posted on Apr, 5 2007 @ 05:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear

Exhaust? HaHa. A B-52 big? HAHAHA? Keep 'em coming Canada_EH you are hilarious!!!


Ok, so this thing has NO exhaust. Hmm, how does it move?

All vehicals in one way or another use the Action-Reaction Principle, A.K.A. Newton's 3rd Law to achieve motion. We learn that in High School Physics. I'm not sure what you heard from your buddy Bob Lazar.

If you know something about physics that the rest of us don't why don't you share it instead of laughing at everyone else?


When you do this, it makes you look Rude and Arrogent!

Tim

[edit on 4/5/2007 by Ghost01]



posted on Apr, 5 2007 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
It was one of our very advanced anti-grav vehicles, probably several hundred feet long. Anti-grav does not make any noise.

It's ironic that someone, who hasn't even the slightest clue what gravity itself actually is, and how modern science describes it, tries to talks about "anti-grav"
!

Regards
yf





top topics
 
4
<< 8  9  10    12  13 >>

log in

join