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.

 

Mystery Plane Identified (theory)!

page: 7
4
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 30 2007 @ 07:25 AM
link   
Yet again a hit and run by Mr Lear.

Honestly Ghost, Waynos & gfad what or how would you feel in my shoes? He comes on the board picks one line of mine and rants for 5minutes and never replies to me. I take it as huge disrespect to myself as person who waits to hear both side of the story and then asks hard questions and then none of which were answered by Mr Lear jet another example of choosing what he wants to see.

Until my questions are answered is it right to say that its fair to ignore what he says or is it lowering myself to his childish level?

I'm interested on anyones input on how they view Mr Lears posting in this thread/disscusion and if they got anything of use out of it or if it was just plain rude at times.

[edit on 22/08/06 by Canada_EH]




posted on Mar, 30 2007 @ 09:03 AM
link   
FWIW Canada, I have found Mr Lears responses to be evasive at best. I find that if the personal angle is brought in then the argument is lost. if no answers appear to your questions then its because there are no answers to give. I have had a similar experience on the 9/11 board last night (with a different member), though the person I was debating with always stayed on topic and never became personal, he was avoiding questions and posting red herrings in an effort to divert my attention from his silly claims.

Rise above it. Mr Lear also seems to believe that anyone who thinks a 757 really did hit the Pentagon is 'uninformed'.

To me, that speaks volumes. I now know I need not trouble myself with his F-19 fantasy any longer.

[edit on 30-3-2007 by waynos]



posted on Mar, 30 2007 @ 09:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by gfad

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?


What I meant was that if we have been mining on the moon for the past 45 years and were able to keep that a secret then its unlikely that we would be able to turn up any evidence of a plane that the government might wish to keep secret.

This is a conspiracy thread not a thread to confirm government lies, misdirection and propanganda. So, yes, government lies, misdirection and propaganda are much easier to prove.


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?!


I spent hundreds of hour flying with the Lockheed test pilot and the avionics tech. It is unlikely that having depended on them to do their jobs at night, in weather, sometimes under very difficult conditions, in places all over the world that I would consider them unreliable. There is a special bond with people you have spent many hours in the air with. It is a bond that you don't get drinking with a guy on the next barstool.



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!


No and gfad you what a sizeable proportion of the people on these boards believe does not make it the truth. As a matter of fact just the opposite.

Auroa existed, it went Mach 12 at 250,000 feet and they made 5 of them.
That is an opinion, I have no proof and it has the same validity has any opinion that Aurora does not exist.

Thanks for your input, I value your opinion.



posted on Mar, 30 2007 @ 09:30 AM
link   
One thing I do find strange is that while the Airforce had stealth, the Navy did not? Wouldn't stealth tech be even more vital to a Navy craft? I know there are tons of people who have served on Carriers as well. Most of them do not report an F-19. Secrets would be hard to keep on a Carrier I assume. Either way it seems strange to me.



posted on Mar, 30 2007 @ 09:30 AM
link   
Thanks Waynos

I did indeed try to keep it impersonal but it was more of a respect thing ( is that none personal?). The fact he argues in the way he has and not provided any info like the documents etc and is going on word vs word made me think he would be more willing like with a discussion I was offering. In fact I still would liek to get eh numbers of the people he offered etc but not so sure it will happen now. Infact I'm nto saying he is wrong in thinking that they still could of tried to build under the F-19 title in the black even with the F-20 documents being true!

Its just that will we ever know due to the cover of the F-20 documents? Probably not or until they want us to know or if it even happened. But here is the catch if they didn't ever test under the F-19 title and say Mr Lear challenges them to prove it what evidence would he need? Or will he always go on the words of his friends? Its a problem in would you believe your buddy you have knowen for 3 days or 20 years and if it is 20 years will you believe it even if the goverment provides evidence to prove the opposite?

Myself I would believe my buddy of 20 years. So my question to Mr Lear do these people still stand by there claims and how long have they done so and how long had you knowen them when they told you their stories? If those types of questions go unanswered then its impossible for me to even give these witnesses any crediblity and believe in what they say.

In essence it would be like your debate waynos with someoen who would rather pull the wool over their own eyes and gets anry if you ask any why questions.



posted on Mar, 30 2007 @ 09:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by pavil
One thing I do find strange is that while the Airforce had stealth, the Navy did not? Wouldn't stealth tech be even more vital to a Navy craft? I know there are tons of people who have served on Carriers as well. Most of them do not report an F-19. Secrets would be hard to keep on a Carrier I assume. Either way it seems strange to me.


There are problems with any plane that is used at sea as well as ships too with the salt and corrosion. That needs to be over come as a good part of stealth relies on RAM (radar absorbing materials). With testing and research I'm sure they can over come this and you'll know if they have if the F-35C version is fielded to the navy with RAM on the machines and I'm sure there are some people on this thread that can attest to the problems of keeping machines functioning on the sea like say Mondo who helped in testing programes for the F/A-18.



posted on Mar, 30 2007 @ 09:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by johnlear
What I meant was that if we have been mining on the moon for the past 45 years and were able to keep that a secret then its unlikely that we would be able to turn up any evidence of a plane that the government might wish to keep secret.


Well since we havn't been mini on the moon for 45 years your statement is pretty meaningless.


Originally posted by johnlear
This is a conspiracy thread not a thread to confirm government lies, misdirection and propanganda. So, yes, government lies, misdirection and propaganda are much easier to prove.


Just because this is a conspiracy thread doesn't mean that anything goes. This is a discussion forum, just because it is based around conspiracies doesnt mean that posts shouldn't meet with any resistance from logical thinking people.


Originally posted by johnlear
No and gfad you what a sizeable proportion of the people on these boards believe does not make it the truth. As a matter of fact just the opposite.

Auroa existed, it went Mach 12 at 250,000 feet and they made 5 of them.
That is an opinion, I have no proof and it has the same validity has any opinion that Aurora does not exist.


That first paragraph makes no sense.

Your opinion on Aurora does not have the same validity as the opinion that it doesn't because there is no proof that Aurora does exist. The burden of proof always lies with the person who is opposing the status quo, you may want to read up on Bertrand Russell's Teapot.

Finally, although you may think that ending your posts with the phrase "thanks for your input" is mature, following it with a smiley definately is not. The sarcastic tone makes you seem derisatory and dismissive.

[edit on 30/3/07 by gfad]



posted on Mar, 30 2007 @ 09:40 AM
link   
John, is that last reply of yours a 'secret code' way of telling us not to believe a word you say?



posted on Mar, 30 2007 @ 09:40 AM
link   
mach 12?its possible afcourse but maybe without a pilot...
couse they sayd human body can windstand max mach 10
thats why they experiment with woman pilots couse they sayd woman bodyes windstand more pressure
its possible but check the special equipment and close the pilots need...
i heard it can go 7 but 12 dunno...



posted on Mar, 30 2007 @ 10:00 AM
link   
Unisol, just stop and have a think.

Aurora (first rumoured 26 years ago!) can do mach 12?

So why all the fuss over the small, unmanned, B-52 launched X-43 a couple of years ago?



posted on Mar, 30 2007 @ 10:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
Unisol, just stop and have a think.

Aurora (first rumoured 26 years ago!) can do mach 12?

So why all the fuss over the small, unmanned, B-52 launched X-43 a couple of years ago?


its either diliberate mis information and hype from the airforce and NASA and you no longer can believe anyone. Or it was the actually the first time speeds like that where obtained and it was actually the big deal they made it out to be in my openion (since that seems to be where the debate hinges)

[edit on 22/08/06 by Canada_EH]



posted on Mar, 30 2007 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by pavil
One thing I do find strange is that while the Airforce had stealth, the Navy did not? Wouldn't stealth tech be even more vital to a Navy craft? I know there are tons of people who have served on Carriers as well. Most of them do not report an F-19. Secrets would be hard to keep on a Carrier I assume. Either way it seems strange to me.


There was an attempt to navalize the F-117, but the Navy wanted something that carried more weapons than just two. The modifications they were going to have to make would have made it about twice as heavy, and required external weapons which would have defeated the purpose of stealth.

We have what, 12(?) Supercarriers in service right now, and NOT ONE PERSON has reported seeing any unusual aircraft on them during port calls, or at the bases they fly the planes out of to the ships? What do they do with them when they travel to other ports? I know when I lived in Hawaii we only have very limited places to put any planes off the carriers, and any unusual ones would certainly have been noticed and reported.



posted on Mar, 30 2007 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by gfad
I'm sorry, Ghost. You know I normally like your posts and I think you know your stuff, but I don't see what new information or assumptions you are stating.

All that I can see is a photo of a model that is decades old and a summary of arguments which the same posters say every time this topic is brought up.

The photo of your "F-19" model is ridiculous. With knowledge of current aircraft design even an amateur can spot large features of the plane which are redundant and dont fit in with textbook stealth and propulsion design. For example this plane exhibits stealth features which are decades old. At a glance I'd guess that if it was real it would have a higher RCS than the SR-71.

Also i think your proposition that the SR-71 replaced the A-12 is also wrong. The A-12 was developed by Lock-Mart for the sole use of the CIA whereas the SR-71 was the AF version of the A-12.

I dont doubt the fact that there is a secret supersonic plane flying round over nevada but there is NO way it looks like that and chances are it isnt call the F-19.



This is true, but don't forget that many, many aeronautical 'experts' and science writers, when shown the first pictures of the F-117 pronounced it to be the new Mach 5 Aurora or some high speed interceptor. Couldn't be further from the truth since, as you know, the top speed of the F-117 was Mach .92 (617 mph).

Also, looking for 'flight worthy' characteristics is now known not to be an ideal method of determining purpose or design. Few thought the F-117 would fly. (strictly speaking, they were correct. Without the FBW controls and computer input, it would not be stable in flight)

Just my 2 cents.



posted on Mar, 30 2007 @ 11:55 AM
link   


don't forget that many, many aeronautical 'experts' and science writers, when shown the first pictures of the F-117 pronounced it to be the new Mach 5 Aurora or some high speed interceptor.


Really? Who? I think we should be told. I can't rememeber any such obviously wrong speculation myself, most of the commentary I remember was surprise that it could fly at all, but concluding it was subsonic and 'most likely to be the rumoured stealth fighter'



posted on Mar, 30 2007 @ 12:24 PM
link   
I responded to Canada_EH but thought I'd throw it out here in case there are people who do not know.

Any attempt to navalize any stealth aircraft have had difficulties. The F/A 18E/F is a moderate attempt to increase stealth as well as weapons payload, fuel, etc...
As far as corrosion goes, as was the question asked to me, most of the RAM (Radar absorbent material) are not subject to the corrosion as they are actually a textile and not composed of metals (usually). Corrosion happens while at sea no matter what but the effects are minimal compared to other materials made of steel and so on.
The longevity of these RAM aiframes is still debated and we well see in the future. As pointed out, most often the reason for the lack of stealth on carriers, say the F117 which was a thought at one time, is due to the weapons payload capacity and external stores which would effectively negate the stealth advantage.

There are many factors at play here, the Navy requirements are quite extreme and demand a much more robust airframe, take a good look at the difference of the F 35 Naval variant for example.

Peace, Mondo



posted on Mar, 30 2007 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by gfad
Finally, although you may think that ending your posts with the phrase "thanks for your input" is mature, following it with a smiley definately is not. The sarcastic tone makes you seem derisatory and dismissive.





Gfad, please accept my humblest apologies for my phrase "thanks for your input" with a smilie on the end of it that makes me seem derisatory and dismissive. I just really wanted you to know that I think you bring "light and love" and a wealth of good solid information to this thread about "Mystery Plane Identified (theory)! Whereas all I bring is testimony of someone who worked on the F-19. Thanks again for your input, it is really, really appreciated.



posted on Mar, 30 2007 @ 06:29 PM
link   
Given that you know all of this information John, can you provide any evidence which can be verified by third parties?

Such as which carriers the F19 operated from in rough time frames for example?

Without anything which can lead people onto bigger discoveries and eventually the truth, all you'll end up doing is creating more and more circular arguments on various discussion boards.

From what I've seen so far you appear to hold all the cards to the truth but seem unwilling to provide people with any means of moving forward, instead replying with a "hey, I know I'm right, you're either just uninformed or stupid if you don't believe me" type attitude?

What does that actually accomplish at the end of the day?

[edit on 30-3-2007 by Stoo]



posted on Mar, 30 2007 @ 07:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stoo
Given that you know all of this information John, can you provide any evidence which can be verified by third parties?

Such as which carriers the F19 operated from in rough time frames for example?

Without anything which can lead people onto bigger discoveries and eventually the truth, all you'll end up doing is creating more and more circular arguments on various discussion boards.

From what I've seen so far you appear to hold all the cards to the truth but seem unwilling to provide people with any means of moving forward, instead replying with a "hey, I know I'm right, you're either just uninformed or stupid if you don't believe me" type attitude?

What does that actually accomplish at the end of the day?

[edit on 30-3-2007 by Stoo]


Its pointless Stoo Ive asked that of Mr Lear in this thread numorous times and he came close once when he asked if I wanted the phone numbers of his contacts and I said yes. His answer well he never had one so I'm left think that he has ignored every single of my posts. I asked intellegent question much like yourself but he found it better to ignore them. And in the way he has been acting with gfad it makes me wonder if he cares about really bringing any truth to his statments.

I ask again Mr Lear please respond to the civil questions from Stoo and myself all we ask for is information or some way to move this beyond word vs word and actually say record testimony or get your friends to join here on ATS even if its for just the purpose of the F-19 myth and to provide counter evidence to the Gov papers on this thread.

Also welcome to ATS SToo I havent seen you on the Aviation forums yet. Good to have another person who at least seems to approach things the way I try too.


[edit on 22/08/06 by Canada_EH]



posted on Mar, 30 2007 @ 08:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stoo
Given that you know all of this information John, can you provide any evidence which can be verified by third parties?


No.


Such as which carriers the F19 operated from in rough time frames for example?


No.


Without anything which can lead people onto bigger discoveries and eventually the truth, all you'll end up doing is creating more and more circular arguments on various discussion boards.


I would guess that statement to be accurate.


From what I've seen so far you appear to hold all the cards to the truth but seem unwilling to provide people with any means of moving forward, instead replying with a "hey, I know I'm right, you're either just uninformed or stupid if you don't believe me" type attitude?


I think not. That exact statement got me banned for a couple of months. What I prefer to say these days is, "I belive I am correct based on the information I have and I have passed on all the information available to me. Thanks for your input.



What does that actually accomplish at the end of the day?


Accomplishments at the end of the day are a very personal matter. There are 2 things I live by:

(1) My day isn't complete until I have ruined someone else's and,
(2) Its not whether you win or lose, its how much you stir the pot.

How am I doin' today?



posted on Mar, 30 2007 @ 08:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Canada_EH

I ask again Mr Lear please respond to the civil questions from Stoo and myself all we ask for is information or some way to move this beyond word vs word and actually say record testimony or get your friends to join here on ATS even if its for just the purpose of the F-19 myth and to provide counter evidence to the Gov papers on this thread.


I responded to the questions from Stoo. As to asking my friends to violate their oath of secrecy for ATS, I don't think I will. They did for me but, well, this group might not be as appreciative.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join