Mystery Plane Identified (theory)!

page: 5
4
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 29 2007 @ 09:15 AM
link   
Hmmmmm, with the last three replies from myself, Canada EH and gfad, am I detecting a theme here?

It is starting to look to me as if John is perhaps weaving a myth from some genuine truths but with a bit of spin added?

for instance;

the F-117 using components from other planes become spun into it sharing its components with the F-19....the F-117 being produced in complete secrecy evolves into a parallel F-19 production line that is eve3n more secret......and the General who was reported to have crashed in a F-117 to cover up the fact that he was actually flying a secretly held MiG 23 morphs into it being reported as a MiG 23 to hide the fact that he was flying a F-19.

Can anyone else see this pattern? Is this where the F-19 tale has grown from?




posted on Mar, 29 2007 @ 09:29 AM
link   
It seems that way waynos. There is always the possiblity of things like the F-19 but the evidence presented so far in this thread as I have been reading and following thread no real evidence that can't be challenged here.



posted on Mar, 29 2007 @ 10:03 AM
link   
I think Waynos might be right in with this one. The F-19 tail is being spun bigger and bigger as time passes. As odd as it sounds, I'm starting to wonder if the Official story might be the closest one to the truth.

I know this doesn't have the awe and romance of a John Lear tale, but what if the Real truth is something like this:

Following the sucess of Have Blue testing at Groom Lake, Air Force officials secretly began planning for the development of a follow-on aircraft to exploit the Stealth technology that Lockheed had demonstrated. Initial plans included a figher-sized aircraft to be built under the designation F-19. As the project developed further, Lockheed and the Air Force initiated the Senior Trend program, which evolved into a light stike plane. Through a series of unplaned events, the Designation F-117A wound up being picked for the new plane, but the F-19 designation wasn't re-released for use until after Northrop's F-20 was in development. In order to avoid messing up the sequencing, the Air Force decided to just skip over the "F-19" designation and keep going.

What do you think? Could F-19 have been an earily proposed designation for the Nighthawk Stealth Fighter that they decided for whatever reason not to use, which would explain how it got skipped?

Tim

[edit on 3/29/2007 by Ghost01]



posted on Mar, 29 2007 @ 10:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Canada_EH
It seems that way waynos. There is always the possiblity of things like the F-19 but the evidence presented so far in this thread as I have been reading and following thread no real evidence that can't be challenged here.




Thanks for the post EH. I find the statement "no real evidence that can't be challenged similar to a double negative, and I object to your calling my three bonafide witnesses as "no real evidence". I would prefer that you before you challenge my witnesses you ask for their names and current telephone numbers but then how would they prove they were who they said they were?

Further, I would like your esteemed comments on the following:

What do you think about about Ben Richs' statement in his book "Skunk Works" (page 48) where he describes Major General Bobby Bond breaking into a top secret Navy facility within the Skunkworks and calling Ben Rich "A lying S.O.B.?"

What do you think about my suggestion that Ben Rich was Mossad's mole in the Skunkworks and had been since 1954? Maybe you don't know that Rich was born into a prominent Jewish family in Manila and that his son is currently VP for RAND? You know what RAND is and its background, correct?

What do you think about my friend the avionics technician story that he worked on the F-19 and when he tried to change to the F-117A was told nobody that has worked on one program can switch to the other? Do you think he is lying about the whole story? Why?

What do you think the Lockheed test pilots motives were when he told me that the F-19 existed? Do you think he could have been part of a plot bewteen three people who didn't know each other (The avionics tech, the test pilot, the Navy SEAL) to jointly conspire to tell me a story about a fictitious airplane? To what end?

The Mig 23 was flown in the early 80's along with most all other Mig types to record and duplicate its radar signature so that on current US fighters the radar signature of approaching aircraft would be labeled "Mig 23" instead of just an unidentified blip. Why do you think Major General Bobby Bond would be out for a spin in 1984 when the previous program was completed? In other words, why would a Major General in charge of tactical warefare take the risk of flying an old Mig 23? Usually Major Generals are required to fly with seeing-eye Captains.

What do you think of my theory that Major General Bobby Bonds was murdered by the Navy by letting him fly the F-19 then disabling the stability computer by remote control causing the F-19 to crash and thereby eliminating the F-19's programs' worst leak source?

What do you think was the real reason the Avro Arrow was cancelled?

Thanks again for your input, I value your comments.



posted on Mar, 29 2007 @ 10:12 AM
link   


What do you think? Could F-19 have been an earily proposed designation for the Nighthawk Stealth Fighter that they decided for whatever reason not to use, which would explain how it got skipped?


I have often thought exactly that Tim, though of course I am still hoping to hear differently and be able to believe it



posted on Mar, 29 2007 @ 10:17 AM
link   


What do you think was the real reason the Avro Arrow was cancelled?


Well I was reading the posts in a non committal way, noti8ng the points for possible further investigation, then I hit this WTF moment!

Avro Arrow? Probably the same real reason that the TSR 2 was, but not because of the F-19.



posted on Mar, 29 2007 @ 10:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ghost01
What do you think? Could F-19 have been an earily proposed designation for the Nighthawk Stealth Fighter that they decided for whatever reason not to use, which would explain how it got skipped?


How about this story:

www.designation-systems.net...

Too "mundane"
?

Regards
yf



posted on Mar, 29 2007 @ 10:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
What do you think about my friend the avionics technician story that he worked on the F-19 and when he tried to change to the F-117A was told nobody that has worked on one program can switch to the other? Do you think he is lying about the whole story? Why?

Maybe I missed something, but is there any other source except your word, where one could verify exactly what "your friend the avionics technician" actually said? I mean, anybody can come up, begin with "A friend of me said that ...", and continue to boast the wildest claims. Therefore, some additional supporting evidence would be really appreciated.


What do you think the Lockheed test pilots motives were when he told me that the F-19 existed? Do you think he could have been part of a plot bewteen three people who didn't know each other (The avionics tech, the test pilot, the Navy SEAL) to jointly conspire to tell me a story about a fictitious airplane? To what end?

See above. As far as nobody can verify what was actually said, and by whom (names!), it's all guesswork. It boils down to either believing you without further evidence, or not. I don't.


What do you think of my theory that Major General Bobby Bonds was murdered by the Navy by letting him fly the F-19 then disabling the stability computer by remote control causing the F-19 to crash and thereby eliminating the F-19's programs' worst leak source?

You ask what I think of this "theory"? Well ... I think it's a big heap of *beeep*!!


Regards
yf



posted on Mar, 29 2007 @ 11:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
Avro Arrow? Probably the same real reason that the TSR 2 was, but not because of the F-19.



No, obviously not because of the time frame. I was checking to see if by chance you might have heard of the Avro Arrow and the subterfuge associated with it in hopes that you might see subterfuge within other programs of other countries.



posted on Mar, 29 2007 @ 11:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by yfxxx

Too "mundane"
?




Yes, this is party line. But help yourself.



posted on Mar, 29 2007 @ 11:06 AM
link   
The F-19 designation was skipped because Northrop requested the F-20 designation for it's proposed export fighter (originally called F-5G). It was a marketing decision. F-20 was a nice round number and sounded more modern than F-5 (which had been around since the Vietnam era).

Some of Ben Rich's melodramatic stories in his autobiography have been called into question. A Lockheed test engineer who was highly placed in the HAVE BLUE and SENIOR TREND programs told me that "Ben tended to fire for effect, rather than accuracy," in his stories. I find it hard to believe that Lt. Gen. Bond would cavalierly break into the classified compartment of another service/agency.

Bond was the vice commander of Air Force Systems Command. As such, he occasionally exercised his privilege to fly "his airplanes" (i.e. AFSC assets). In March 1984, he made two orientation flights in an F-117A (Article 782) at Groom Lake. A month later, he returned to make two similar orientation flights in the MiG-23. Unfortunately, he lost control of the airplane and died. (I have visited the spot where they found his body in Area 25; there is a memorial marker on the site).

John has stated that the "F-19" used the same engines as the F-117A (two GE F404s). According to the accident report, Bond was flying a single-engine aircraft. The MiG-23 is a single-engine aircraft. A former Red Hat told me Bond was in a MiG-23. Other inside sources have confirmed this. The MiGs at Groom were AFSC assets.

The story that Bond was flying a MiG-23 is plausible and makes a lot of sense. Many aspects of John's "F-19" tale are implausible. I don't believe it would be practical (or even possible) to secretly operate fighter planes from an aircraft carrier. I also don't see any practical purpose for the Navy to maintain a shroud of secrecy over such an aircraft for nearly three decades. As early as 1981, Aviation Week & Space Technology magazine reported that testing had begun on "Lockheed's stealth fighter" (which turned out to be the F-117A) and, by 1986, reported accurately that there were "about 50 radar-eluding 'Stealth' jet fighters fully operational...in the Nevada desert near Tonopah." Surely, a similar aircraft being "secretly" flown in numbers from aircraft carriers would have been exposed by now.



posted on Mar, 29 2007 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
Further, I would like your esteemed comments on the following:

What do you think about about Ben Richs' statement in his book "Skunk Works" (page 48) where he describes Major General Bobby Bond breaking into a top secret Navy facility within the Skunkworks and calling Ben Rich "A lying S.O.B.?"


John,

I have another totally reasonable theory about what the Project Gen. Bond stumbled in on could have been. Like you, I can quote Ben Rich's book the Skunk Works to support my ideas:


It seemed to me that a catamaran SWATH ship held real promise as a model for a stealthy ship. And on my next trip to washington for a meeting on our stealth airplane with Defense Undersecratray Bill Parry, who was the Carter administration's czar of stealth, I mentioned the idea of a model ship. I told Dr. Perry that the Catamaran would provide a perfect test of the effects of stealth shaping and coatings for surface vessels. We also wanted to test the effects of seawater on radar-absorbing iron ferrite coatings. Dr. Perry agreed and ordered the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) to authorize a study contrat with us.



What do you think about my suggestion that Ben Rich was Mossad's mole in the Skunkworks and had been since 1954? Maybe you don't know that Rich was born into a prominent Jewish family in Manila and that his son is currently VP for RAND? You know what RAND is and its background, correct?


I knew that Ben Rich was Jewish and from Manila. However, I fail to see how that made him a Spy! I really think your streaching on this one.


What do you think about my friend the avionics technician story that he worked on the F-19 and when he tried to change to the F-117A was told nobody that has worked on one program can switch to the other? Do you think he is lying about the whole story? Why?

What do you think the Lockheed test pilots motives were when he told me that the F-19 existed? Do you think he could have been part of a plot bewteen three people who didn't know each other (The avionics tech, the test pilot, the Navy SEAL) to jointly conspire to tell me a story about a fictitious airplane? To what end??


Frankly, I think it's rather strange that Everyone with a securty clearance and a really amazing story to tell seems to know you! Don't you find this just a bit strange.

In a old post to me, you went above and beyond to tell me how unquestionably loyal US Navy personnel are, and how they would never share anything even remotly secret. No offence, but with such overly loyal people gurading these secrets, and not one of them daring to whiper about it in there sleep, How do all these great secret always seem to find you?

You have to admit, that is really odd!


What do you think of my theory that Major General Bobby Bonds was murdered by the Navy by letting him fly the F-19 then disabling the stability computer by remote control causing the F-19 to crash and thereby eliminating the F-19's programs' worst leak source?


They intentionally cause a Top Secret aircraft to crash, and took the chance of exposing it to get rid of one man?


No offence, but are we really supposed to believe this? Causing a crash could have done more harm to program security then Gen. Bond could have. A crash draws attention from outsiders and speads parts of an aircraft over a large area. Also, it can leave some of the most sensitive equiment in a plane exposed to observers. Also crashed often end up in the news, which is why they have to create cover stories.

In all Honesty, this is the most Ludicrist thing I've ever heard. Your stories are getting more UNBELIEVEABLE by the second!


Tim



posted on Mar, 29 2007 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by yfxxx
Therefore, some additional supporting evidence would be really appreciated.


That sounds good to me! What kind of supporting evidnece would you accept? Please be specific and reasonable. You are not going to get a clear videotape of an F-19 operating from a U.S. Aircraft Carrier or taking off from Nevatim.


As far as nobody can verify what was actually said, and by whom (names!), it's all guesswork. It boils down to either believing you without further evidence, or not. I don't.


Now we are getting somewhere.


You ask what I think of this "theory"? Well ... I think it's a big heap of *beeep*!!


OK. Well lets start with Ben Richs statement that Major Bobby Bonds called him a "Lying S.O.B.". Is that part part of your 'big heap'.

And thanks for your participation yfxxx, its always nice to hear from you.



posted on Mar, 29 2007 @ 12:22 PM
link   
Fair enough John, if Ben Richs story is accurate and lets assume that it is, Bobby Bonds walked in on something in the Skunkworks facility and saw that they were workingon something for the Navy. So what? It doesn't mean its a hypersonic stealth aircraft, in fact it doesnt mean that its even an aircraft. As another poster has pointed out Skunkworks did make a stealth ship, that could easily be what Bonds saw.

The fact that the Skunkworks weer collaborating with the Navy on some project cannot be used as proof of the F-19.

I also find it funny that these Lockheed men were so easy with sharing secrets of the Skunkworks with you.



posted on Mar, 29 2007 @ 01:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear

Originally posted by Canada_EH
It seems that way waynos. There is always the possiblity of things like the F-19 but the evidence presented so far in this thread as I have been reading and following thread no real evidence that can't be challenged here.




Thanks for the post EH. I find the statement "no real evidence that can't be challenged similar to a double negative, and I object to your calling my three bonafide witnesses as "no real evidence". I would prefer that you before you challenge my witnesses you ask for their names and current telephone numbers but then how would they prove they were who they said they were?


Sorry John I'm not trying to insult you personally and I retract any statment that you take as an attack. What I wont say sorry for is challanging your word againest mine. After all thats how the forums move along here on ATS. As for their current numbers etc I'd love them even if its just for a chat about these things that spike my interest. I've never been one to just use plain blanket statments and If my post came off this way again my apologies.


What do you think about about Ben Richs' statement in his book "Skunk Works" (page 48) where he describes Major General Bobby Bond breaking into a top secret Navy facility within the Skunkworks and calling Ben Rich "A lying S.O.B.?"

What do you think about my suggestion that Ben Rich was Mossad's mole in the Skunkworks and had been since 1954? Maybe you don't know that Rich was born into a prominent Jewish family in Manila and that his son is currently VP for RAND? You know what RAND is and its background, correct?

I was unaware of your statement about Rich being a mole for Mossad and in all honesty have a functioning knowledge of RAND but its more so limited to their involment in a large number of national secruity issues for the states. Many of the events in which RAND plays a part are based on assumptions which are hard to verify because of the lack of detail on RAND's highly classified work for defense and intelligence agencies. Any company that is in that line of work is ripe for theories abotu how much they do or dont know.


What do you think about my friend the avionics technician story that he worked on the F-19 and when he tried to change to the F-117A was told nobody that has worked on one program can switch to the other? Do you think he is lying about the whole story? Why?


Its comon knowledge that in groomlake etc that from the begining they havent allowed many personel to switch from one programe to another. I would never accuse someone of bold face lying but I would question as to how much information is willing to put forward as to try and nail down test flights useage or role of the plane deployment etc.


What do you think the Lockheed test pilots motives were when he told me that the F-19 existed? Do you think he could have been part of a plot bewteen three people who didn't know each other (The avionics tech, the test pilot, the Navy SEAL) to jointly conspire to tell me a story about a fictitious airplane? To what end?


Until there are names numbers etc how do I know that the F-19 existed? Its hard to have 3 people like that know each other but the models the news and the industry provides the knowledge to come to the same story though details if agreed upon do provide a link you just didn't provide those and that raises questions for me as I'm sure it would for you.


What do you think was the real reason the Avro Arrow was cancelled?


Well lets leave it at the least to say it wasn't for the reasons the prime minster gave. I'm quite familier with the CF-105 project and it is the root for a fair amount of my hate for Canadian Goverment.


Thanks again for your input, I value your comments.

I value yours as well I'm sorry that you had to choose to focus on my post but I do value anyone who post on ATS and someone as yourself even if we disagree on some issue probably agree on others. If I hold the openion that UFO don't exist that my choice and if may reasoning is that I'm very critical of the information persented to me you should be happy to talk to some one like that ans get their input.

Finally John I would like to now publically ask for your information in regard to the X-22 saucer project as you didn't respond to my U2U. Its in relation to a possible connect to the Avro Car and the possible X-22 project that was going on at the same time as the Avrocar test and even the development of the CF-105. Thanks for any of your information so I can create my thoughts on the subject. If you could U2U me and of the relevant info so we don't hijack this thread. Thanks again for you time
Canada_EH



[edit on 22/08/06 by Canada_EH]

[edit on 22/08/06 by Canada_EH]



posted on Mar, 29 2007 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by gfad
Fair enough John, if Ben Richs story is accurate and lets assume that it is, Bobby Bonds walked in on something in the Skunkworks facility and saw that they were workingon something for the Navy. So what? It doesn't mean its a hypersonic stealth aircraft, in fact it doesnt mean that its even an aircraft.


Whatever your argument gfad, 2 404's couldn't push anything, anything, straight down a mine shaft at hypersonic speeds so I would respectfully request that you leave your theory of an F-19 that goes hypersonic outside of this thread. Thanks.


As another poster has pointed out Skunkworks did make a stealth ship, that could easily be what Bonds saw.


I would doubt very much that General Bonds would call Ben Rich a lying S.O.B. for lying about a stealth ship! No, thats not believable.


The fact that the Skunkworks weer collaborating with the Navy on some project cannot be used as proof of the F-19.


No, of courese not. What makes is highly suspicious is that Bobby Bonds was head of tactical air warfare and was in on all aircraft being developed. If he found out that the Navy was developing one without his knowledge he would be very unhappy. And thats why he called Ben Rich a lying S.O.B. Not because the skunkworks was building a new stealth ship or new rowboat.


I also find it funny that these Lockheed men were so easy with sharing secrets of the Skunkworks with you.


I grew up in southern California, made many, many contacts over the years. You might find it 'funny' but I think you are using the wrong word.

Thanks for you input.



posted on Mar, 29 2007 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shadowhawk
The F-19 designation was skipped because Northrop requested the F-20 designation for it's proposed export fighter (originally called F-5G). It was a marketing decision. F-20 was a nice round number and sounded more modern than F-5 (which had been around since the Vietnam era).






Thanks for your input Shadowhawk, it is always welcome as are your opinions many of which I consider informed.



posted on Mar, 29 2007 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ghost01

In all Honesty, this is the most Ludicrist thing I've ever heard. Your stories are getting more UNBELIEVEABLE by the second!
Tim





Thanks Tim, your comments are always welcome even with your continued and unchecked mispellings. Sometimes they add an unintended chuckle to your intended point



posted on Mar, 29 2007 @ 02:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
I would respectfully request that you leave your theory of an F-19 that goes hypersonic outside of this thread. Thanks.

I would doubt very much that General Bonds would call Ben Rich a lying S.O.B. for lying about a stealth ship! No, thats not believable.

No, of courese not. What makes is highly suspicious is that Bobby Bonds was head of tactical air warfare and was in on all aircraft being developed. If he found out that the Navy was developing one without his knowledge he would be very unhappy. And thats why he called Ben Rich a lying S.O.B. Not because the skunkworks was building a new stealth ship or new rowboat.

I grew up in southern California, made many, many contacts over the years. You might find it 'funny' but I think you are using the wrong word.


I was referring to the many theories about the mysterious F-19 designation that are flying about, I certainly don't have any theories regarding the characteristics of the F-19 as I dont think it exists, even if your "contacts" confirm it.

OK, so lets take your argument a step further, Bobby Bonds saw that the Skunkworks were working on a plane for the navy, doesn't it make more sense, as I said earlier, that this design was the F-177N the navy variant on the nighthawk which eventually went as far as the Pentagon before being turned down?

And "funny" is the right word. I too have contacts who work on classified projects but they definately wouldn't reveal information to me who wouldn't even know what it means, never mind someone (with all respect) like you, with links to journalists with interests in this field etc.



posted on Mar, 29 2007 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
OK. Well lets start with Ben Richs statement that Major Bobby Bonds called him a "Lying S.O.B.". Is that part part of your 'big heap'.


No, because it's completely irrelevant! Neither you nor me have the lsightest idea why Bonds called Rich a "lying SOB". Using this quote as solid "evidence" for your F-19 story is, well ... err ... {@mod: If I want to say that something/someone is really very stupid, which word can I use on this forum?
} ... anyway, you know what I mean
.

So, as usual, you don't present any evidence at all except your own word. I assume that many regular ATS users know your patterns by now, and only laugh at your posts. However, it's sad to think about how many younger and inexperienced readers are tricked by your (admittedly amazing) past as a pilot, your elaborate writing, and seemingly good manners into actually believing that you have a "Truth" to tell.

Anyway, Shadowhawk and others have nicely summarized strong evidence against your F-19 claim. All you have is a weird tale "supported" by bizarre leaps of faith and a few completely anonymous "witnesses". I.e., nothing at all. Now, what do you think: Which version of the story should a rational(!) person believe?


And thanks for your participation yfxxx, its always nice to hear from you.

And it's sometimes funny to hear from you
. However, you could do with some new rhetorical tricks. So far its almost always:
- Weird tales, with effectively all the "evidence" being your word
- No phyiscal evidence, or leads for validation, are ever provided, even when asked for.
- Valid criticism is not answered at all.
It's beginning to get boring
.

Regards
yf





new topics
top topics
 
4
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join