Holy crap, my memories have been debunked!!!

OK, where to start with this.....its kind of a hard pill to swallow but in the interests of truth and open minded unbiasness I must report what I have gleaned from a truly genuine individual whom is an acquaintance of mine though my work, whom has no biased opinions on this topic. Now keep in mind this gentleman did not offer this info..I slowly and deliberately picked his head for information over time until he opened up to me, and learned a few things I didn't want to know..like the U2 carried a payload.

This gentlemen is aprox 68-78 years old and is a retired U.S. naval pilot. His name of course shall be withheld publicly for obvious reasons as his security clearance was well above top secret. He was part of a three man U2 crew. He sat in the nose and controlled weapons and lighting ect... he was at and air base in Spain 1957, Eisenhower had just departed the base and flown back to Washington. As he was walking towards one of the hangars he noticed a small group of people on the runway watching an object flying at incredible speeds around the base.

He described this object as follows:

Aprox. 50 feet in length.

Boomerang shaped.

Remotely controlled (by the men on the tarmac)

Completely black in color and seemed to be
made of metal or some unknown composite.

No visible thrusters and no propellers.

He watched the object wisk around the base at variable speeds and altitudes the greatest of which to him was mind boggling fast and at one
point he couldn't even follow it with the naked eye (going so fast) he had to
follow the vapor trail to visually reacquire it again. After about 10-15 minutes of flight he watched it slow and come down and crash quite unceremoniously onto the runway next to two other wrecks of identical
crafts apparently flown earlier in a demonstration for Eisenhower.(Apparently they had not mastered landings yet)

Upon talking with a few other guys on the base he learned that they were
indeed experimental drones (UAV'S) being flown in 1957.

He never got to see these crafts take off to which he was retrospectively disappointed about...but he did watch one land and it wasnt pretty , flipping end over end and skidding to a tangled wreck.

So back to brass tacks... the reason for this post. I feel obligated to the community to report ALL findings as UNBIASEDLY as possible. Even
ones that seem to "debunk" my own personal experiences.


I witnessed a close encounter (50 feet or so from me) of a VERY similar craft (boomerang shaped) that was double the size, made no noise and moved very slowly over our vehicle and over the tree line to my right. My thoughts on this was it had to be extraterrestrial be cause of the green glow the enveloped the entire craft, no rivets, seams or doors, windows, hatches...no markings or exterior lighting, that I could see (AND I WAS CLOSE!!!!!!)

I must say that I have always kept an open mind about the sighting stating that it could have been military but leaning towards extraterrestrial because
of initial gut feelings and the sheer awe of the sighting, but I feel it important enough in the interests of the truth, to relay what I learn regardless of personal feelings.



[edit on 9-5-2007 by 1nL1ghtened]

Originally posted by 1nL1ghtened
He was part of a three man U2 crew. He sat in the nose and controlled weapons and lighting ect...

You need to do a little research on this. If you're referring to a Lockheed U-2 surveillance aircraft, they were single seaters. Later they built some 2 seat training aircraft, but the operational aircraft were single seaters. Heck, look at a photo of one and check out the space in the nose. And weapons? Lighting? It was a spy plane.

Possibly you heard the wrong type of aircraft.

Thats possible..and I would add its also possible that the info that is published for the world to read, is not entirely accurate. Just out of curiosity... does the same providers of this information tell of the payload carried by these "spy planes" and why the crews of said craft must undergo extensive training on atomic, and hydrogen based weapons?

Great testimonial 1nL1ghtened, I have one kinda important question though. Are you sure the man said there was a vapor trail from the boomerang object?
Just seems maybe it might have been from another Interceptor.
Great report, look forward to how other members think of your report too.

Dallas

Originally posted by Dallas
Great testimonial 1nL1ghtened, I have one kinda important question though. Are you sure the man said there was a vapor trail from the boomerang object?
Just seems maybe it might have been from another Interceptor.
Great report, look forward to how other members think of your report too.

Dallas

Thx Dallas, I tried to report what this gentleman has said to me verbatim...he said it did leave a vapor trail at high speeds and made an intermittent WHOOSHING sound , he likened it to the sound of a burner on a hot air balloon.

Certainly a low level humand/or a wooshing sound sit's in line with many-many other reports. Great report !!

Dallas

Just out of curiosity... does the same providers of this information tell of the payload carried by these "spy planes" and why the crews of said craft must undergo extensive training on atomic, and hydrogen based weapons?

As a Lockheed brat I can tell you the U-2 wasn't designed for weapons. The whole point (which it did rather well, until Mr. Powers...) was to be invisible...and never had a mission profile for armament.

If we had such a craft (the black boomerang with no visible propulsion), it sure seems we wasted a lot of money on Area 51 (largely expanded from a dirt runway to accomodate the early U-2 program), the U-2, and then later the SR-71, B2, etc.

Maybe he saw a black Northrup YB-49? Of course, those were ordered destroyed before '57 I believe...

Maybe it was a captured Horton IX? (doubtful though, a lot of it was wood, and likely wasn't serviceable as late as '57)

Originally posted by 1nL1ghtened
the info that is published for the world to read, is not entirely accurate.

Might that include the information you are publishing? Seems only fair......

Originally posted by Gazrok
As a Lockheed brat I can tell you the U-2 wasn't designed for weapons. The whole point (which it did rather well, until Mr. Powers...) was to be invisible...and never had a mission profile for armament.

My "uncle" was a U2 test pilot for Lockheed and I say the same as everyone else. The U2 wasn't made to be armed.

It's too bad he was scrubbed from his mission and replaced with Gary Powers. Perhaps my "uncle' wouldn't have been shot down.

Hey Gazrok, nice to see yah posting again Sir. I had thought (limited knowledge), the Wood stealth craft was German WW2 in origin?
Also our OP on this thread say's his friend thought the craft to be 50 ft in diameter("Length"). Pretty-big I'd suggest. Pretty-cool just the same if Eisenhower seen a demo a wee-bit earlier.

Dallas

Powers U2 flight was what?, 1963? Think the YB49 crashed itself and the crew out of existance.

The A12 (The A-12 is the forerunner of the SR-71 and has nearly the same shape and dimensions as its replacement. Designed to replace the U-2, the A-12 flew higher and four times as fast to outrun enemy defenses and gather intelligence. The A-12 is primarily an over flight vehicle unlike the SR-71. Its major advantages in capabilities to the SR-71 include its higher-resolution photography and its ability to go marginally faster (Mach 3.3) than the SR-71. However, the SR-71 was chosen as successor to the A-12 due to its side-looking radar and cameras, allowing it to gather important reconnaissance data without penetrating enemy airspace).

But anyway, I don't know we're talking the std Blk ops craft here anyway.
U2 and Powers was, seems to me, was a mark on the planned Summit Meeting arranged in Paris for 14 May 1960 to discuss Berlin and the arms race.
"Nine days before the meeting, however, the Soviets shot down an American U2 spy plane. Although they claimed at first it was an off-course weather plane, the Americans had to admit it was a spy plane when the Russians produced the pilot, Gary Powers."

As a Lockheed brat I can tell you the U-2 wasn't designed for weapons. The whole point (which it did rather well, until Mr. Powers...) was to be invisible...and never had a mission profile for armament.

Interesting that you brought that up, he also said that at that time they developed a paint that actually rendered an airborne object invisible!!
And that the Russians threw such a big fit over it, we signed some kind of treaty not to use it. At that time I guess we were discovering alot of their secrets and them ours...so it was a kind of stalemate type bargaining going on
behind the scenes...

Again people, I am not or shall never claim to be an expert on aircraft, engineering or much of anything... I will continue to try contribute what I
learn.

As in any forums you have to take it with a grain of salt, Im just reporting something told to me by a quiet, modest, soft spoken elderly gentleman
who was a reluctant part of the U2 program. Neither he or I have anything
to gain by misrepresenting the facts that are presented....quite the opposite I'd imagine.....


"The truth, can get you killed"

1nL1ghtened

Holy crap, my memories have been debunked!!!

Thats exactly what I think when I wake up after a big party... followed by throbbing headache or nausea.

I just had to.

As for U-2 spy plane...

As Mrpenny asked:

And weapons? Lighting?

Weapons... are irrelevant, but lighting? (I'm not attacking you 1nL1ghtened, I'm just curious and/or confused as to what "lighting" is. Isn't the lights controlled by the pilot?)

I don't want to say this... but maybe the person got alzheimers and watched a movie with spy plane?

Just ruling out the possibilities.

[edit on 9-5-2007 by The_unraveller]

Regardless of what this implies, I am steadfast in my personal beliefs and
his testimony really proves nothing except the fact that we had some
pretty cool technology way back in 57'....

Where did the ideas for it come from?

How can we be remotely controlling objects (or UAV's)
faster than the eye can follow? (Think about that one....)

Who's to say Lockheed or some other "outside" contractor
didnt make a "U2" or u2 like plane that was specifically designed
TO carry a payload?

Just another interesting side note to this story...he said something about
the lights on this craft were so bright..(some kind of phosphorescent and some liquid chemical I cant remember) that they lit cloth or canvass on fire
with it over an air strip...while they were in flight!

Anyone every hear of anything like this?

This post reads more and more like it belongs in Skunkworks.

What if....?

Maybe...?

Originally posted by The_unraveller

Holy crap, my memories have been debunked!!!

Thats exactly what I think when I wake up after a big party... followed by throbbing headache or nausea.

I just had to.

As for U-2 spy plane...

As Mrpenny asked:

And weapons? Lighting?

Weapons... are irrelevant, but lighting? (I'm not attacking you 1nL1ghtened, I'm just curious and/or confused as to what "lighting" is. Isn't the lights controlled by the pilot?)

I don't want to say this... but maybe the person got alzheimers and watched
a movie with spy plane?

Just ruling out the possibilities.

[edit on 9-5-2007 by The_unraveller]

As I have already stated: verily verily, I say unto you....


As in any forums you have to take it with a grain of salt, Im just reporting something told to me by a quiet, modest, soft spoken elderly gentleman
who was a reluctant part of the U2 program. Neither he or I have anything
to gain by misrepresenting the facts that are presented....quite the opposite I'd imagine.....


"The truth, can get you killed"

1nL1ghtened

[edit on 9-5-2007 by 1nL1ghtened]

Originally posted by MrPenny
This post reads more and more like it belongs in Skunkworks.

What if....?

Maybe...?

It is UFO related and relevant to this forum...but thx for your input.

Originally posted by 1nL1ghtened
As I have already stated: verily verily, I say unto you....
[edit on 9-5-2007 by 1nL1ghtened]

Ow... sorry.

I didn't take the time to read the rest of the thread.

Very interesting post

One thought I'd like to inject:
When people get on in years they get lonely and in our society they are not respected by younger people. Over time they see all their friends die and slowly they feel more and more isolated because they have nothing in common with the people around them. When younger people show an interest in their stories and their lives they love to share their stories. Memories are seldom accurate and over time as they embellishments are added there comes a point when they can no longer discern between what was real and what was added. In fact if you share stories with people you grew up with you will find a different version of your experiences together from each person relating it. Add that to the loneliness and you get the tall tales. The source of many myths and legends. Then you have the fact that when you have a audience you spice it up even more.

If he knows you are interested in these topics the stories would be flavored to please the audience. He wants you to be a friend to fill the void of the people long gone he used to swap lies with over a beer.

This is all conjecture but worth considering???

Great point Blaine, and I agree that when investigating a subject you have to look at it from every angle to sift through the chaff ...thats what makes discussion boards an invaluable tool...when people read the whole thread and can contribute intelligently.

As to the information I have gathered ...they were actually answers to questions I asked of him. In other words, he rarely offered information
on a given subject unless I asked a specific question. (I have asked him ALOT)

He personally in all his years in the naval airforce, has every seen anything
other than the craft I described on base....which was actually a R&D IFO.

I am a believer ...and I would like to continue believing that what I personally
witnessed was not of earthly origin.... but to get to the truth of any investigation one must remain objective and be open enough to accept
other possibilities and or realities as the evidence is gathered.

I do NOT wish to have my memories debunked, I almost wished I never asked him anything...but he had no prior knowledge of my sighting and I cannot in good conscience dismiss this mans testimony of witnessing U.S.
tested drone craft, the same unusual shape that I witnessed that morning and thought it relevant enough to post here about it.

Im not trying to convince anyone here, merely relaying some interesting findings in order to possibly shed light and share some knowledge, do with it what you will.