Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Mystery Plane Identified (theory)!

page: 6
4
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

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

Originally posted by johnlear
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.


John, the issue wasn't the ship, it was the Stealth Technology. The Air Force believed that Stealth was exclusivly theirs! I believe Gen. Band was angry because he found out that Lockheed scientist where sharing their knowlege of stealth with the US Navy.

If you look at the history in interservice rivalry between the Air Force and Navy this wouldn't be hard to believe.


Second Point: not all Aircraft are "Tactical" in Nature. The B-2 and SR-71 are both examples of startegic aircraft.

Also, John, you failed to account for one thing with your "F-19 hypothosis": Time

All these events are over 25 years old. This happened while the F-117 was in development. The Nighthawk has now been around for 25 years. This hypothetical plane of your would have to be the same age, which means it should be in the twilight years of it's service now.

Why would they still deny the existance of this aircraft now?

Your theory just doesn't seem plausable to me!

Tim




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

Originally posted by gfad
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?




The Navy has never appreciated Air Force hand-me-downs. They wanted their own stuff and Lockheed helped them and even turned over of few to Israel.


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.


Sorry, gfad, it must drive you bonkers.



posted on Mar, 29 2007 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear

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.

Just to jump on the band wagon that I as well have heard this reasoning as well



posted on Mar, 29 2007 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ghost01
All these events are over 25 years old. This happened while the F-117 was in development. The Nighthawk has now been around for 25 years. This hypothetical plane of your would have to be the same age, which means it should be in the twilight years of it's service now.

Why would they still deny the existance of this aircraft now?

Your theory just doesn't seem plausable to me!

Tim


Yet in that reasoning the Aurora should of been turned white long ago. It is an interesting idea that a plane would never be admited to and drop of the fase of he earth and a harder one for aviation buffs like myself



posted on Mar, 29 2007 @ 02:36 PM
link   
looool f19! dosnt it remind u of the movie "stealth"?
im a biiig fan of the blackbird and as long as i know the aurora is the plane that took sr-71 out of the pic{:
the article in wikipedia reads that aurora can go to mach 7 aint that cool...
well one things is for sure we can make anything now,even the documentary says it "the only thing holding back is the human body"
we got the technology,we got laser satelites cmon^^
i think i even heard a sonic boom one time here in bulgaria



posted on Mar, 29 2007 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Canada_EH

Originally posted by Ghost01
All these events are over 25 years old. This happened while the F-117 was in development. The Nighthawk has now been around for 25 years. This hypothetical plane of your would have to be the same age, which means it should be in the twilight years of it's service now.

Why would they still deny the existance of this aircraft now?

Your theory just doesn't seem plausable to me!

Tim


Yet in that reasoning the Aurora should of been turned white long ago. It is an interesting idea that a plane would never be admited to and drop of the fase of he earth and a harder one for aviation buffs like myself


You raise a valid point here!

What did become of Aroura? The truth is we really don't know. Could the project have been revield already under a different name? Or, what if Aroura failed and never reached production?

As for diffenent Names, allow me to use an example:

Senior Ice
Senior CJ
Sabre Penatrator

These three code name All refer to different stages of the B-2 program. when they rolled the B-2 out they didn't give the world a list of all the code names it had used over the years right away.

Could the same be true of Aroura?

Tim



posted on Mar, 29 2007 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by gfad
I was referring to the many theories about the mysterious F-19 designation that are flying about,





Yes, well, gfad, let me respectfully request that you don't mix my insane ramblings with the insane ramblings of you-know-who. Thank you.



posted on Mar, 29 2007 @ 03:29 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).


Some Air Force memos ...





Regards
yf



posted on Mar, 29 2007 @ 03:32 PM
link   
im sure that they allready maked a more superior plane then the aurora.
cmon sr-71 wan doing mach 3 at the cold war and we didnt know back then that he exist...
now we allready know that the aurora exists imagine the things we dont know...



posted on Mar, 29 2007 @ 03:39 PM
link   
Mr Lear I'm just wondering if your going to address any of the questions I brought up in my posting. Since you were quite serious and almost attacking myself to gloss it over now would be insulting to myself. I respect your input and ideas and would be unhappy to go unanswered twice now about by own.

Respectfully Canada_EH

[edit on 22/08/06 by Canada_EH]



posted on Mar, 29 2007 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by yfxxx

Some Air Force memos ...

Regards
yf





Ya Vol! That would certainly be evidence beyond refute. An actual U.S. Air Force memo. Excellent find yfxxx. I consider the matter settled!



posted on Mar, 29 2007 @ 03:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
Ya Vol! That would certainly be evidence beyond refute. An actual U.S. Air Force memo. Excellent find yfxxx. I consider the matter settled!

It's not irrefutable proof (and I never said so), but it's some solid evidence which one can work with (e.g. by trying to verify the authenticity of the memos). And that's much more than you ever provided! And by the way, learn to spell "Jawohl!" if you intend to use it
!

Regards
yf



posted on Mar, 29 2007 @ 04:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by yfxxx
And by the way, learn to spell "Jawohl!" if you intend to use it
!





Dankeshein!!!



posted on Mar, 29 2007 @ 11:19 PM
link   
I still think the monogram version of the f19 is a prime candidate for electrostatic propulsion and at least limitted nape of the ocean flight capabillity. It is after all a great way to get away from your launch platform with minimal risk from radar detection.. especially considerring our carrier groups enforce an exclusion zone around themselves.



posted on Mar, 30 2007 @ 04:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
Yes, well, gfad, let me respectfully request that you don't mix my insane ramblings with the insane ramblings of you-know-who. Thank you.



Request- yes

Respectfully? Nice try! Please quit with the cheap shots! (If you wish to refer to your own contrabutions as "insane rambling" that's fine. However don't refer to others in that way)

Respectfully,

Tim

[edit on 3/30/2007 by Ghost01]



posted on Mar, 30 2007 @ 04:55 AM
link   
Bravo yfxxx,

Great find! I've been looking for something like this for a while but was never able to find it. May I be so courious as to ask how you found these? Are they from a website, or an archive of some kind?

I think this is a good example of how sometimes a seemingly strange episode in miliatry history can be misunderstood. What started as a corprate request for marketing purposes became one of the longest running conspiracy theories ever.

Tim

[edit on 3/30/2007 by Ghost01]



posted on Mar, 30 2007 @ 05:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by roguetechie
I still think the monogram version of the f19 is a prime candidate for electrostatic propulsion


You're not the first person to come up a line like this but I ask one thing, please bear in mind that neither Monogram nor Testors are aerospace engineering companies, they are commercial toy producers with a keen eye to make money and in a good position to latch onto the common 'stealth fighter' stories and make a buck from it.

Please stop treating these designs as if they are serious contenders. They were created only to look reasonably viable and sell model kits to keen readers of Flight and Av Week, like myself, OK?


You will have missed it but I have already demonstrated on this board why the Monogram interpretation is actually unflyable in the real world.

[edit on 30-3-2007 by waynos]



posted on Mar, 30 2007 @ 05:19 AM
link   
Well done yfxxx those memos are great. Some solid evidence against the existance of a plane with the F-19 designation, as you said, more than John Lear ever produced.

John you seem to dismiss these memos without comment (I'm ignoring your irrelevant sarcastic post), and you seem to joke that they don't even show anything. Do you understand the difference between actual and anecdotal evidence? Do you know which stands up better?

All you have produced is the testimony of these people who, I think strangely, are quite willing to break the secrecy clause in their contracts. Don't you think that makes them unreliable?!


Originally posted by Unisol
im sure that they allready maked a more superior plane then the aurora.
cmon sr-71 wan doing mach 3 at the cold war and we didnt know back then that he exist...
now we allready know that the aurora exists imagine the things we dont know...


Please Unisol, tell me you are joking! We do not KNOW that Aurora exists infact me and a sizable proportion of the people on these boards believe that it doesnt exist and never did, at least not in the way the myth describes. You cant use the uncertain existance of one mythological plane to validate the existance of another one!



posted on Mar, 30 2007 @ 06:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ghost01
Great find! I've been looking for something like this for a while but was never able to find it. May I be so courious as to ask how you found these? Are they from a website, or an archive of some kind?


FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) request to the U.S. Department of Defense.

Regards
yf



posted on Mar, 30 2007 @ 06:36 AM
link   
Good call! I've never had luck FOIA Requests. Perhaps I'm picking the wrong questions.

Tim






top topics



 
4
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join