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.

 

The Lockheed X-22A Anti-Gravity Fighter Disc

page: 5
5
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 28 2004 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by MPJay
Because i have a picture of the plane outside a hardened aircraft shelter in Saudi Arabia with his name on it taken in 1991.


Just because his name was on the plane does not mean that he flew it in combat. I do not recall seeing pilot names on the aircraft until after hostilities were complete.

Is there a way to post this pic on the net so that we can see it with our own eyes?




posted on Jul, 28 2004 @ 03:51 PM
link   
Absolutely i can, i can scan any number of pics you like from books in my collection , which show that pilots names were on the aircraft. The caption to the picture indicates that Wardell did fly combat during that time.

Here's a page that has a little history.

members.fortunecity.com...

I have a pic of 3 aircraft on the ramp at King Khaid airbase and one of the whole stealth pilots in front of an aircraft, Wardell is there, the 100k limit would make it hard to see his epaulettes on his flying suit. But i can do a full scan for your benefit if you want.

[edit on 28-7-2004 by MPJay]

Photos removed, need space for MiGs operated by the USAF.

[edit on 30-7-2004 by MPJay]



posted on Jul, 28 2004 @ 03:55 PM
link   

u wanna know why its so bad cause our gov sucks and they only care about everything apart from defense.
i wouldnt be suprised if by 2008 britains army will be less than 50,000 im serios thats the way things are going.
also i would be happy if the US put presssure on tony to increase spending on the military front.


Even I would be happy if bush puts pressure on Tony to increase the budget hell how would that look if we go to war and we don't even have Britain anymore. Also this always seemed kind of cheesy to me RAF Royal Air Force why do they call it royal its not like the queen or king have any say in the military or political fields I think having kings and queens is so 200 years ago.



posted on Jul, 28 2004 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23

Even I would be happy if bush puts pressure on Tony to increase the budget hell how would that look if we go to war and we don't even have Britain anymore. Also this always seemed kind of cheesy to me RAF Royal Air Force why do they call it royal its not like the queen or king have any say in the military or political fields I think having kings and queens is so 200 years ago.


I always thought the Royal in RAF was for the sake of tradition. England has had and very long history filled with many acts of courage. They seem to me like a people that do not want to forgot their long tradition even if they were ruled by a king and queen back in the day. They seem to take pride in the past kings and queens of England at least most of the royals.



posted on Jul, 28 2004 @ 04:15 PM
link   
The following text is from a posting to uk.rec.ufo,alt.paranet.ufo by Roger Cook. He dismisses the notion that a disk needs to spin at high speeds:

"As to the AVRO VZ-9AV Avrocar, it is no secret that this craft was un-stable
in it's "ground-effect" surface travel. It is also a widely diseminated fact
that it never flew out of "ground-effect". What is not spoken of, is the
fact that it could have flown..... under certain circumstances. The official
testing was done by the U.S. Air Force, and the following report details it."

Avrocar Flight Evaluation, W H Deckert, W J Hodgson,
Air Force Flight Test Center, Edwards AFB, CA. FTC-TDR-6l-56,
January 1962. (27 pgs)


"After detailing the two seperate test sessions (both in surface travel),
they listed requirements before any more testing (including free-flight)
would take place. The two major ones; were that the cockpit be moved to the
front of the aircraft, and that suitable flight control surfaces be added to
the craft (fyi: those same control surfaces might even have prevented the
"hub-capping" of the craft, thereby making it stable even in surface travel
in "ground -effect").
Sadly, the program was cancelled before this could be done."




Here are a few NASA report citations that I copied from
home.swipnet.se... discusing the stability of disk shaped craft.

1 Static Longitudinal Stability and Control Characteristics at a Mach Number of 1.99 of a Lenticular-shaped Reentry Vehicle, C.M. Jackson Jr, R.V. Harris, Jr. NASA Technical Note D-514, NASA Langley Research Center, Oct 1960 (16 pgs)

2 Subsonic Longitudinal Aerodynamic Characteristics of Disks with Elliptic Cross Sections and Thickness-Diameter Ratios from 0.225 to 0.425., F.A. Demele and J.J. Brownson, NASA Ames Research Center, NASA TN-D-778, Apr 1961 (25 pgs)

3 Subsonic Longitudinal Aerodynamic Characteristics of Disks with Elliptic Cross Sections and Thickness-Diameter Ratios from 0.225 to 0.325., F.A. Demele and J.J. Brownson, NASA Ames Research Center, NASA TM-X-556, May 1961 (46 pgs)(De-classified )

4 Landing Characteristics of a Lenticular-Shaped Reentry Vehicle: Ulysse J. Blanchard, NASA Langley Research Center, NASA TN-D-940, Sep 1961 (32 pgs)

5 Experimental Investigation of a Disk-Shaped Reentry Configuration at Transonic and Low Supersonic Speeds: Lazzeroni, F. A. NASA Ames Research Center, NASA TM-X-652, May 1962 (27 pgs)(De-classified )

6 Investigation of the Low-Subsonic aerodynamic Characteristics of a Model of a Modified Lenticular Reentry Configuration: G. M. Ware, NASA Langley Research Center, NASA TM-X-756, Dec 1962 (28 pgs))(De-classified )

7 Large-Scale Wind-Tunnel Tests of a Circular Plan-Form Aircraft with A Peripheral Jet For Lift, Thrust, and Control. R.K. Greif, William H. Tolhurst, Jr., NASA Ames Research Center, NASA TN-D-1432, Feb 1963 (97 pgs)

8 Supersonic Aerodynamic Characteristics of Some Reentry concepts For Angles of Attack up to 90 deg: M. L. Spearman, NASA Langley Research Center, AIAA Paper 85-1795, Jan 1985 (8 pgs)

9 Supersonic Aerodynamic Characteristics of Some Reentry concepts For Angles of Attack up to 90 deg: M. L. Spearman, NASA Langley Research Center, NASA-TM-87645, Nov 1985 (32 pgs)

10 The Discus Body and its application to V/STOL Aircraft and Space Vehicles, by Martin Gerloff, Aero/Space Engineering, Jan 1960, pp. 51-56

11 Disk Shaped Vehicles Are Studied For Potential As Orbital Aircraft, AVIATION WEEK, 15 Jun 196O, pp. 27-28

12 Landable Disk Re-Entry Vehicles: P A Giragosian & W D Hoffman, Fairchild Stratos Corp, Hagerstown, Md, in Dynamics of Manned Lifting Planetary Entry, Symposium, 3rd, Proceedings, (Philadelphia, Oct 1962) Publisher: JOHN WILEY & SONS, New York, NY, pp. 729-749

These seem to state that a spining craft is not required.

Also I would think that a craft could be designed that would be stationary and have what would amount to a large roller bearing, surrounding the pilot who is located at the center of the disk, along the wall of the outer perimeter . This bearing would spin at a high speed and allow the craft to be stable and you could counter the effect of the bearing by using an opposing force the same way a heliocopter tail rotor counteracts the spin of the main prop.

Just a thought. Who knows what's out there. I also agree the US would not have used such a classified craft in Iraq. It was not needed.



posted on Jul, 28 2004 @ 04:21 PM
link   
Posted the pictures for COOL HAND's benefit, i'll keep them up until i need the space to post another photo.



posted on Jul, 28 2004 @ 04:45 PM
link   
It is odd that the 'Royal' as in Royal Air Force and Royal Navy are there because they are 'HM Forces' and thus have allegiance to he crown in the same way as US forces have allegiance to the President But the army is not the Royal Army, merely the British Army. Anyone know why?

I know that the RAF and the Navy do not have to have 'British' in the title as in both cases they were the first in the world of their kind whereas the Army was clearly not, I don't know if this is the reason.



posted on Jul, 28 2004 @ 05:33 PM
link   



posted on Jul, 28 2004 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX

I always thought the Royal in RAF was for the sake of tradition. England has had and very long history filled with many acts of courage. They seem to me like a people that do not want to forgot their long tradition even if they were ruled by a king and queen back in the day. They seem to take pride in the past kings and queens of England at least most of the royals.

shadow i have no quarrel with you but please remember this fact ,WE ARE BRITISH NOT ENGLAND ITS NOT CALLED THE ROYAL ENGLISH AIRFORCE ITS THE ROYAL AIRFORCE.
we joined to gether 4 good countries not just one.
also yes we do take pride in our history and monarchy.
its not for tradition it was opened by the queen wich means that it is a royal thing wich is given only to things that the royalty agree with which is important.



posted on Jul, 28 2004 @ 05:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23

Even I would be happy if bush puts pressure on Tony to increase the budget hell how would that look if we go to war and we don't even have Britain anymore. Also this always seemed kind of cheesy to me RAF Royal Air Force why do they call it royal its not like the queen or king have any say in the military or political fields I think having kings and queens is so 200 years ago.

so who cares what every one else thinks. actually the queen has lots of power she can declare waar and make peace. shes more powerful than blair.



posted on Jul, 28 2004 @ 08:09 PM
link   

so who cares what every one else thinks. actually the queen has lots of power she can declare waar and make peace. shes more powerful than blair.


No HMS stands for His or Her Majesty Ship but if the king or queen says i wont this ship to attack so and so it wont happen until Blair declares war so it is fro tradition not cuz the king or queen have any say in politics or war.

Plus how can shi declare war?


It is odd that the 'Royal' as in Royal Air Force and Royal Navy are there because they are 'HM Forces' and thus have allegiance to he crown in the same way as US forces have allegiance to the President


No the president of the Us is the commander in chief but the queen or kind is not the commander in chief so how can they have allegiance to them the PM is the commander in chief so shoulder they have allegiance to him/her?


[edit on 28-7-2004 by WestPoint23]



posted on Jul, 28 2004 @ 09:24 PM
link   
actually thats not how it happens westpoint. the queen can decide not to go to war or not its in her powers as monarchy. and actually it will happen if the queen wants it to BUT most likely she would never do a thing like that and she would be convinced otherwise. actually u have no idea how this country works so dont tell the people that live here how our gov works.



she can declare war by saying to tony blair "i want to go to war with that country"
but she wouldnt do a thing like that cause they dont tend to take much of a intrest in politics.



wespont we dont swear to the a comander and chief we swear to our queen,country,god and to obey the orders of our superior officers.
tony blair basically runs the country nothing more. he is not incharge of the military he can autherize a war by haveing if he isnt voted against it and wins the vote the country goes to war.



[edit on 19/07/04 by devilwasp]



posted on Jul, 29 2004 @ 01:48 AM
link   
You guys have a screwed up system with this queen king prime minister thing. She can beg to Tony Blair all she wants if he says no she is left out in the cold right or does she have the power to over rule what tony wants to do? I dont think she can.

Also the squadron leader writing on the F-117 looks photoshoped to me.


[edit on 29-7-2004 by WestPoint23]



posted on Jul, 29 2004 @ 06:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
You guys have a screwed up system with this queen king prime minister thing. She can beg to Tony Blair all she wants if he says no she is left out in the cold right or does she have the power to over rule what tony wants to do? I dont think she can.

Also the squadron leader writing on the F-117 looks photoshoped to me.


[edit on 29-7-2004 by WestPoint23]

no he cant
the house of lords would never allow it and tony would be gone.
dont think of him as so powerful. also how is it screwed up? we respect our traditions. frankly giveing all your power to one man is insane, too much of a risk. i believe she can overrule him.
also frankly i dont see how it is a phtoshop job i could have said that baout numerous photos but i didnt so please dont try to make false allegations here.



posted on Jul, 29 2004 @ 08:43 AM
link   
West Point, photoshopped? one i don't have that program, and 2, i have limited space so i had to save the jpeg as highly compressed once i scanned the photo out of the book. FYI the book is America's Stealth Fighters and Bombers, Motorbooks, 1992, author James C. Goodall page 56-57. James Goodall has a good reputation in aerospace circles, has a lot of inside information. So buy some research tools yourself, try Amazon.com they have quite a few books there, some written by the actual managers of the program. There's F-117 and F/A-22 books written by the actual program managers, and some with direct support from the contractors involved, so before you say a piece of information is bogus, try doing some research yourself first.



posted on Jul, 29 2004 @ 01:26 PM
link   
Devil I think your wrong if anyone here on ATS can clear this up for us doest the queen have any political powers at all and if she does can she overrule what the Pm wants to do or tell him what to do?

Plus opinion is not false allegations it looks extra fresh like everything is blurry and this white writing is all fresh looking.


[edit on 29-7-2004 by WestPoint23]



posted on Jul, 29 2004 @ 02:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Devil I think your wrong if anyone here on ATS can clear this up for us doest the queen have any political powers at all and if she does can she overrule what the Pm wants to do or tell him what to do?


- well as a UK resident I think this is one of those 'in theory' debates. In theory the heriditary Monarch has the ultimate power but in practise the democratic Parliament does.

Even if the two were ever on a collision course regardless of the actual outcome in that particular instance it would probably finish the Monarchy in relation to even it's vestigial cerimonial role in the UK state.

A similar-ish clash happened with the House of Lords a long time back over the budget, they won that litttle battle and lost the war as they were marginalised in the decades that followed.



posted on Jul, 29 2004 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Devil I think your wrong if anyone here on ATS can clear this up for us doest the queen have any political powers at all and if she does can she overrule what the Pm wants to do or tell him what to do?

Plus opinion is not false allegations it looks extra fresh like everything is blurry and this white writing is all fresh looking.


[edit on 29-7-2004 by WestPoint23]

dude dont doubt me i may have been wrong sometimes but i know this one fairly well.
umm it aint blurry its called black paint. also black on white is always gona look new.



posted on Jul, 29 2004 @ 04:42 PM
link   
As i said, the local storage is limited to 100k, having to compress each picture reduces quality, but not so much the obvious truth is abolished. I'm only going to have those pics on for another day before i focus on US flown MiG aircraft



posted on Aug, 19 2004 @ 06:21 PM
link   
Firstly,.....it would be nice to read some comments or info on the x-22a at hand....for example as mentioned in the article...the Lockheed version not the Bell version....What is the difference, is it the same?..probably not..someone comment.

What is the possibility of the projects existence if it under the cover of X-22a or not.....

I am curious about the actual concepts it carries, gravity and beam weaponry...is it hoo ha or could it be related to the unidentifiable craft seen in Mexico earlier this year by their own air force. That one is interesting because no one could see the crafts with their eyes but it did show up on infrared. There were torroidal shaped coronas visible with small fluxing spheres underneath them as they were levitating......Also they moved in very sudden "jerky" movements, which is charicteristic of a craft that would theoretically be independent of the Earth's gravity....G-free...



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join