It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

Help ATS via PayPal:

The Road to Area 51: After Decades of Denial, Five Former Insiders Speak Out!: Project Oxcart

page: 2
74
share:

posted on May, 16 2010 @ 12:02 PM
Why don't we just quit asking and form a massive mob and storm the place for answers. J/K or am I. Lol.

posted on May, 16 2010 @ 12:20 PM

Originally posted by insideNSA

LibertyGal you are not correct in your statemetn that no one can survive high mach speeds. You are confusing velocity with acceleration. Speed is relative, currently the earth is traveling thousands of miles an hour relative the to sun, and we are all surviving this 'high speed' without a hitch.

Perhaps you are thinking about acceleration to those mach speeds. Acceleration is the only thing that can create a G-force on the pilot. However if a pilot slowly accelerates to say Mach 22, there would be barely any G-forces on the pilot at all.

I'm sorry, but I am going to differ with you on this assessment. Allow me to explain why.

Earth has mass. As we stand on earth, we experience gravity. Standing on the Earth at sea level–standard =1 g.

Even if you were to somehow magically place a human into high mach speeds, the results would potentially lead to death.

Here is an explanation:

Aircraft, in particular, exert g-force along the axis aligned with the spine. This causes significant variation in blood pressure along the length of the subject's body, which limits the maximum g-forces that can be tolerated.

Positive, or "upward" g, drives blood downward to the feet of a seated or standing person (more naturally, the feet and body may be seen as being driven by the upward force of the floor and seat, upward into the blood). Resistance to positive g varies. A typical person can handle about 5 g (49m/s²) before G-LOC, but through the combination of special g-suits and efforts to strain muscles—both of which act to force blood back into the brain—modern pilots can typically handle 9 g (88 m/s²) sustained (for a period of time) or more

In aircraft, g-forces are often positive (force blood towards the feet and away from the head); this causes problems with the eyes and brain in particular. As g-force is progressively increased the pilot may experience:

Grey-out, where the vision loses hue, easily reversible on levelling out.
Tunnel vision, where peripheral vision is progressively lost.
Blackout, a loss of vision while consciousness is maintained, caused by a lack of blood to the head.
Redout, a reddening of the vision while consciousness is maintained, caused by an excess of blood to the head.
G-LOC a loss of consciousness ("LOC" stands for "Loss Of Consciousness").[9]
Death, if g-forces are not quickly reduced, death can occur.

These are statistics of maintained g-force, not the accelleration to get there. Maintained g-force is relative to the earth, as I said in my post. In space, when the mass is lessened due to distance, the further away you are from a gravitational object, the more tolerable the speed becomes on the human body, hence why the shuttle is able to have such high cruise speeds. Speed is a constant, and gravity is a constant. Only by escaping gravity can extreme speeds be tolerated.

If you watch a shuttle launch, you will note the lift off is relatively slow. This is because of two factors, one of which is gravity. The further the shuttle gets from earth, the less gravity is restrictive of it. The second factor is the human ability to tolerate the speed. Both are factored very carefully to assure that humans not only survive the accelleration, but the speeds attained, as well. Early space flight testing will lay testimony to that.

The human body is better at surviving g-forces that are perpendicular to the spine. In general when the acceleration is forwards, so that the g-force pushes the body backwards (colloquially known as "eyeballs in"[10]) a much higher tolerance is shown than when the acceleration is backwards, and the g-force is pushing the body forwards ("eyeballs out") since blood vessels in the retina appear more sensitive in the latter direction..

Early experiments showed that untrained humans were able to tolerate 17 g eyeballs-in (compared to 12 g eyeballs-out) for several minutes without loss of consciousness or apparent long-term harm.[11] The record for peak experimental horizontal g-force tolerance is held by acceleration pioneer John Stapp, in a series of rocket sled deceleration experiments culminating in a late 1954 test in which he was stopped in a little over a second from a land speed of Mach 0.9. He survived a peak "eyeballs-out" force of 46.2 times the force of gravity, and more than 25 g for 1.1 sec, proving that the human body is capable of this. Stapp lived another 45 years to age 89, but suffered lifelong damage to his vision from this last test.[12]

John Stapp was subjected to 15 g for 0.6 second and a peak of 22 g during a 19 March 1954 rocket sled test. He would eventually survive a peak of more than 46 g, with more than 25 g for 1.1 sec. [6]

Toleration of g-force also depends on its duration and the rate of change in acceleration, known as jerk. In SI units, jerk or horizontal g force g is expressed as m/s3. In non-SI units, jerk can be expressed simply as gees per second (g/s). Very short durations or high jerk forces of 100g have been claimed. There is no jerk g without push F; g=F/m, where F is mechanical push force on mass m. Then horizontal acceleration is a=gt. Then velocity at acceleration time t=600 seconds and constant g=1 m/s3 is: v=gt2=360,000 metres/second. For constant g=5 m/s3 and t=6000 second, speed v=gt2=180 million metres/second. [13]

en.wikipedia.org...

I bet we've had antigrav since the 60's. Just look at how all the antigravity research in all the main physics journals suddenly disappeared in the late 50's after Brown's initial experiments. Talk of antigrav went from mainstream to totally disappearing right about the time we figured it out

Ben Rich of Lockheed already admitted a few times on video that we have the tech to travel amongst the stars but it would take an act of God before any of us would ever see them because they are controlled in super secret black projects.

See, this is exactly the type of thing I am talking about. I think it is tacitly wrong to hide our technology when so much could be done with it. Why does the government insist on making everything war-related? It simply angers me.

So if we can do it, we are doing it.

It makes me wonder what Gary McKinnon actually found when he hacked our computers and found evidence of Non terrestrial based naval officers.

I'm sure Gary knows something big, and by not telling anyone he is protecting himself from being killed.

But maybe its the opposite. Maybe he should spill the beans, then if he dies we all know who did it.

But is it worth dying for?

edit for brackets and typo

[edit on 16-5-2010 by Libertygal]

[edit on 16-5-2010 by Libertygal]

posted on May, 16 2010 @ 01:05 PM
It's about as secret as Iranian secret facilities and is designed to destroy and take over the world like the Iranians. In fact it is probably owned by Iran, and the Americans don't realise it. The Iranians are producing WMD in the US and the world is asleep. We must wake up and destroy this facility before it is too late.

posted on May, 16 2010 @ 01:29 PM

Originally posted by abecedarian
All I will add is the F-14 is capable of M2+... and the SR71 is M3. Anyone else find that odd considering the effort spent blending the leading edge of the wings into the fuselage and the variable geometry intake 'cones' used to slow incoming air to the turbines (mock-ramjet?) to subsonic speeds?

I find it odd that the "fastest" plane in existence is Mach 3+ and we're developing a Mach 6+ speed plane. Wouldn't each "Mach" level need more research? So why jump from 3 to 6... unless 4 & 5 were already acheived...?

The F14 & F15 was made because of the codename Foxbat Mig 25 and the codename Foxhound Mig 31 ironically the XB70 Valkyrie Bomber was capable of MACH 3 and the Foxbat was made to intercept the XB70XB70 Valkyrie there was only 2 that were made of the XB70 one crashed because of a tail escort winged the XB70 causing it to crash the Ironical thing is the Valkyrie Bomber never made it to the production line and was canceled
and the last remaining XB70 was Mothballed to a Museum

but this Super Sonic Bomber put the Scare in the Soviets so bad that they made the Foxbat Mig 25 ! to Intercept the XB70! and was plenty made
and later a more advance model the Mig 31 ( Foxhound )
The Mig 25 is still !
The Fastest Fighter ! ever flown to the Public Eyes note i said Fighter !

the Yf or a12 or sr71 Black bird is a reconnaissance spy plane not a fighter
but is considered the fastest plane ! but the XB70 Bomber Would of been the Fastest Biggest Plane to fly! just think of a Souped up Commercial Concorde with Bombs!

it is true that the X-planes spy planes etc.. were flown there ! at area 51
and also the Rumors about the Moon Surface of Sea of tranquility mock up is also there ! and the Stages of the Landing ( as some footage of the film (video) might had to be redone because of you know things were not supposed to be in the flim Ufos buildings structures etc... ) besides the captured Ufos & detained outer space aliens

just as the Aurora is the new secret Spy plane if it does exist ! Mach 6 ?

[edit on 16-5-2010 by Wolfenz]

posted on May, 16 2010 @ 03:12 PM

It is obvious you never took a basic physics course. You prove my point in your own argument!!!

a g-force = a force measured by the force of gravity g
force = mass X ACCELERATION

speed relative to ANY reference point does not exert ANY force

Einstein says that the force of Gravity g = acceleration.

If what you are saying is true then there is no way our astronauts could land the space shuttle as they come in at tremendous speeds.

also the technological assessment of a previous poster is correct... we DO have aircraft that can go at Mach 10+ and much higher. Though it isn't admitted to, we have evidence of this of test pilots being captured on radar doing these speeds at the same time being heard over the radio.

please libertygal, go learn basic physics and the difference between velocity and acceleration/gravity. acceleration/gravity are forces, while velocity is NOT and velocity in itself does not exert any force

right now we are both doing mach 25 relative to the sun and mach 1000 relative to the center of the galaxy

The human body is better at surviving g-forces that are perpendicular to the spine. In general when the acceleration is forwards, so that the g-force pushes the body backwards (colloquially known as "eyeballs in"[10]) a much higher tolerance is shown than when the acceleration is backwards, and the g-force is pushing the body forwards ("eyeballs out") since blood vessels in the retina appear more sensitive in the latter direction..

posted on May, 16 2010 @ 04:17 PM

we DO have aircraft that can go at Mach 10+ and much higher. Though it isn't admitted to, we have evidence of this of test pilots being captured on radar doing these speeds at the same time being heard over the radio.

Do you have any links to that info?

You got my interest!!!

posted on May, 16 2010 @ 05:50 PM

Originally posted by insideNSA

It is obvious you never took a basic physics course. You prove my point in your own argument!!!

a g-force = a force measured by the force of gravity g
force = mass X ACCELERATION

speed relative to ANY reference point does not exert ANY force

Einstein says that the force of Gravity g = acceleration.

If what you are saying is true then there is no way our astronauts could land the space shuttle as they come in at tremendous speeds.

You are correct, and I was wrong.

I was simply not allowing for the removal of g-force from the equation, to attain the speed, and you were talking about pure velocity. I was also wrong on sustained speed and gravity.

I apologize for the misunderstanding.

posted on May, 16 2010 @ 07:07 PM

Originally posted by anon72

we DO have aircraft that can go at Mach 10+ and much higher. Though it isn't admitted to, we have evidence of this of test pilots being captured on radar doing these speeds at the same time being heard over the radio.

Do you have any links to that info?

You got my interest!!!

It might be the Aurora Aurora
please see reference and info of the Wiki !

In March 2006, the History Channel broadcast a television program called "An Alien History of Planet Earth" which examined UFO reports in the context of secret military aviation programs. During the program, aviation journalist Nick Cook presented a satellite image of the continental U.S. showing a contrail allegedly originating in Nevada and extending over the Atlantic Ocean. The contrail was unusual, as it appeared different from other contrails visible on satellite images. The craft that produced those contrails was not visible on the image. Based on the details of the image, it was speculated that it indicated an aircraft flying at a speed of around 7,000 mph (Mach 10.5, or 11,265 km/h).

the big question in how it can be manned and and extreme gforce if the Plane craft did any maneuvers! Unless a big if! of the craft has the ability to have Anti gravity as maybe the borrowed technology of the Vril Craft! (Nazi made Ufos)

[edit on 16-5-2010 by Wolfenz]

posted on May, 16 2010 @ 07:33 PM

the big question in how it can be manned and and extreme gforce if the Plane craft did any maneuvers! Unless a big if! of the craft has the ability to have Anti gravity as maybe the borrowed technology of the Vril Craft! (Nazi made Ufos)

That is what I was trying to say. lol

Even *if* we could obtain those speeds, any maneuvers would be deadly, no?

posted on May, 16 2010 @ 09:22 PM

Man, you are loaded for bear. Being all new to me, everthing you wrote I want to know more about.

Fascinating. I still tend to think these guys in the OP thread are telling the truth. They have nothing to fear-at their ages.

Wonder what will come out, say 10 years from now?

posted on May, 16 2010 @ 09:40 PM

Just found this on the Aurora. Been a long time since I looked into that one.

posted on May, 16 2010 @ 11:11 PM

Originally posted by boondock-saint
www.virginmedia.com...

a link to a pic of the OXCART Plane ^^^^^^

as much as I would like to believe this story
there are quite a few holes in it, especially
the timeline and shape of UFO's reported
and 90deg turns which is impossible for
conventional aircraft. While I tend to think
these guys are telling the truth, there is even more
they are not telling. It seems to me they are using
the OXCART program as a scapegoat for UFO
sightings. Which I hardly think is equivalent
in scope to ET. And besides, there is no way
any engineer is gonna reverse engineer an
OXCART from a MIG. It's a cover story for
the masses who need disinfo.

Exactly what I was thinking. I think these stories were released to cover-up the very real UFO's that were reported. To think that Project Blue Book was just created to write down sightings of military aircraft is a joke, and an insult to my (and many others) intelligence.

posted on May, 16 2010 @ 11:14 PM

Well, we have some of the smartest minds in the world being paid very nicely to work undercover in HOPES of creating new technology.

If your job was to literally try to make a new invention 24/7 with many other geniuses, more often than not new technology will boom.

As to why it is not released - my opinion is that the government is in a race with other governments and that is all. They will hold on to their good hand until it is needed to be played and have no intention for public release.

Only after decades of hidden usage will it eventually leak to the public sector where it will become globalized - but by then the military has something brand new.

edit - Kind of like Iron Man No one gets his suit!

[edit on 16-5-2010 by FritosBBQTwist]

posted on May, 17 2010 @ 06:49 AM

I have to agree with you. The Gov't isn't designing and creating things for the betterment of the common citizen (other than the stated objectives of Defense etc).

Meaning they didn't do Project Oxcart in the hopes of coming up with some commerical useage or for the betterment of common man. It was for their spcific purposes-of course.

Now, take that with what we do know now that occurred at Area 51 decades ago. What will the common man be told about decades from now?

My fear is that Gov't will use the info/tech against us instead of for us-when push comes to shove. They will display a different attitude towards us all when and if they have to-with the money and tech they got because of the citizens. Messed up.

posted on May, 17 2010 @ 07:25 AM
I was 15 years old when Gary Powers was "shot down" over the USSR.

At the time they were not supossed to have ground to air missles which could reach the U-2. There was a lot of talk at the time if he was at his assigned altutide, but we will never know now.

The point of my reply is in respect to to picture you show. I am well aware that you could only post the photos which are available to you. I am also aware that a lot of time has passed since I saw the pictures of his plane released by the Russians.

The thing is, the picture I see here is very very different from the ones I remember seeing then.

As I said this should not reflect on the poster of this item, but more on the pics available or the memory of an old man.

posted on May, 17 2010 @ 08:59 AM

The wreck of Francis Gary Powers’ U–2

At this link, you can see the official Russian documents/transcripts of his trial (with pic of that). Also, this is where I got the photo you question. It is in the Soviet case file. I guess they (Russians) could have stuck anything in there-then.

Or maybe what you saw was the doctored propoganda stuff? Anyway, ckeck out the link and let me know what you think.

yellowairplane.com... (about half way down the page).

posted on May, 17 2010 @ 09:03 AM
no problem libertygal.

of the question about doing the maneuvers... you are 100% correct, that at high speeds any slight turn would create a force. that is because acceleration and the associated force are created with a change of speed or a change in direction (a turn) but if you think about it they are actually the same thing.

and as someone alluded to, the craft that have antigravity convienently don't have to worry about g-forces when they turn because the anti-gravity bubble the craft is surrounded by cancels out the occupant's mass.

so force or g-force (if you want to put units on it) = mass x acceleration

but when mass approaches zero you see that even at high speeds these guys can make right angle turns with little to no g-force experienced in the cockpit! without the antigrav they would surely liquify their internal organs
antigravy natural cancels out mass/force! awesome stuff.

[edit on 17-5-2010 by insideNSA]

posted on May, 17 2010 @ 10:28 AM

Originally posted by Libertygal

Originally posted by FritosBBQTwist
I have been 5 feet away from the Nellis Bombing and Gunnery Range sign...got a picture too!

There is an SUV positioned maybe 70 yards away from the exact "entrance" that just watches you.

Cool read. I am more interested in the technology we have created that people do not know about than the whole "secret cover up" aspect of it.

I agree with you. I, however, do like the coverup aspect of it, as well.

I have been reading about Groom Lake for a long time, and the Cammo Dudes is one fascinating aspect to the story.

I think the fact that our technology is so much futher advanced than we are allowed to know says a lot about cover-ups, and has to lead one to question : Why?

Obviously, advanced technology in the wrong hamds levels the playing field, but by the same token, not revealing technology for 40-60 years seems almost inhumane.

The technology can be used for more than war, and because of government control and paranoia, we are literally behind the times and I find that offensive to a degree.

It feels to me along the same lines of shielding a child from something until they get older. The child is clueless to what's going on, and may have a tendency to have issues about it when the get older and discover what was happening all along. This is the only way I can explain how it makes me feel, though I am certainly not a child, the government can tend to make it seem so.

I also question where did this technology come from? I certainly feel we are an intelligent race, but I also have a great deal of skepticism about the huge boon of advancement we have made in the past 80 years or so. Moreso than at any other point in human history.

I doubt that we simply reached a stage in our evolution where our intellect just exploded. I think we are advancing, even now, at exponential rates, and simply cannot deny that it makes me suspicious.

I think sincerely, that we have had help in some form or fashion, be it from back engineering or straight forward help.

I think this is what fuels the fascination with Groom Lake/Area 51, because people *know* there are things going on there. The secrecy and Cammo Dudes and the signs, it alls plays into our suspicions, along with the Government land grab like happened at Freedom Ridge.

The tech jumps came when the industrial revolution began. Why? Because that is when we were able to really start digging...literally. The "advanced" tech of today was reverse engineered after being dug up.

When you are blasting through mountains laying track, or digging wells or mining, that is when you find the tech and since these companies are the same ones from old they retain what they find. It is "extra" terrestrial, but not alien.

None of this happens in society until the digging begins as everything gets buried over and over again.

The future is in the past..."in a galaxy far far away".

Peace

posted on May, 17 2010 @ 11:51 AM

Originally posted by malcr
Air Speed records:

1920 - 313
1930 - 655
1940 - 755 (almost mach1)
1950 - 1124 (mach1.5)
1960 - 2585 (3.4)
1970 - 3529 (4.6)
1980 - ? should be around mach 6-7
1990 - ? should be around mach 8-9
2000 - ? should be around mach 10-11
2010 - ? should be around mach 12-13

Note how the fastest record is 40 years old. Come on! No chance. An educated guess says that the airforce has a craft capable of travelling to the moon and back in hours. Which is why Obama has stopped that pursuit by NASA and instead concentrated on Mars.

Of course that's just a guess on the other hand with the grounding of the shuttle a few years ago and the last flight shortly how did/does the paranoid military get access to it's space hardware? Hitch a ride with the russians and chinese!!!!!!!!!!!! I don't think so. The US military HAS HAD ITS OWN access to space since the 80's so a logical progression of technology puts the US military on the moon already.

I've been saying this to the Wife (although she doesn't really understand) for ages now!

They've put the International Space Station up there at a cost of billions and now the Shuttle is being retired, we can't get there? I don't think so!

Surely we won't be sending Americans over to Russia to hitch a ride?

The whole thing is a joke, surely they have been doing stuff using Black Projects for probably the last 20+ years like the above poster has said!

To be honest, I'm getting rather pi**ed off with all the secrecy and lies, I don't trust the governments around the World at all. Like being a mushroom, being kept in the dark all the time, ridiculous!

posted on May, 17 2010 @ 03:20 PM

Surely we won't be sending Americans over to Russia to hitch a ride?

Yes, that is exactly what we are going to do, and as it just so happens, Russia went up on their "air fair" more than double at this good news!

Sadly, we are taking the back seat to spcae, and allowing other countries to not only catch up, but to pass us in our technology.

Because it is only "fair".

Russia raises price tag for giving US astronauts rides to space after shuttles get scuttled

Tue Apr 6, 6:51 PM
By The Associated Press

WASHINGTON - The price for American astronauts to hitch a ride on a Russian spaceship is going sky high.

NASA on Tuesday signed a contract to pay \$55.8 million per astronaut for six Americans to fly into space on Russian Soyuz capsules in 2013 and 2014. NASA needs to get rides on Russian rockets to the International Space Station because it plans to retire the space shuttle fleet later this year.

NASA now pays half as much, about \$26.3 million per astronaut, when it uses Russian ships. NASA spokesman John Yembrick said the cost is going up because Russia has to build more capsules for the extra flights. NASA had already agreed to pay as much as \$51 million a seat for flights in 2011 and 2012, before the latest increase.

new topics

top topics

74