Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Can anyone find the source of this quote from Ben Rich Re: hidden advanced technology

page: 2
12
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 22 2013 @ 03:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shadowhawk
As I pointed out in an earlier post, there was no "deathbed" confession.


Which is why I wrote "purported" death bed confession.




Harzan says that after the lecture ended a few people remained behind to ask questions. Some wanted to know more about the technology to “take E.T. home.” Harzan says Rich initially brushed off these queries but allegedly told one engineer, “We now know how to travel to the stars. We found an error in the equations and it won’t take a lifetime to do it.” I have also heard Rich's statement quoted as, “First, you have to understand that we will not get to the stars using chemical propulsion. Second, we have to devise a new propulsion technology. What we have to do is find out where Einstein went wrong.” Unfortunately, neither quote is verifiable but the second one sounds more like the words of an engineer, especially one with Rich's stated views as outlined in his letter to John Andrews....

...In 1994, a year after the UCLA lecture, rich told Popular Science magazine, “We have some new things [at the Skunk Works]. We are not stagnating. What we are doing is updating ourselves, without advertising. There are some new programs, and there are certain things, some of them 20 or 30 years old, that are still breakthroughs and appropriate to keep quiet about [because] other people don’t have them yet.” He didn't disclose, or even hint at, any advanced interstellar propulsion technologies because there was nothing to disclose.


Your explanation sounds very reasonable -- that Rich's comments were merely jokes that got out of hand and misused by "True Believers." (I should confess that I'm a "True Believer" but I'm not going into why.)

But for you to make the statement, "He didn't disclose, or even hint at, any advanced interstellar propulsion technologies because there was nothing to disclose." is pretty amazing.

So you were working at Skunkworks with Rich? You're a Black Project insider?

I don't know how a reasonable person could make such a categorical statement without insider knowledge.




posted on Aug, 22 2013 @ 04:22 PM
link   
I have had a lot more opportunity to see inside the world of military, industrial, and NASA materials and propulsion technology than most people. I don't claim to know everything, but it seems pretty clear from what I have seen and heard from various inside sources that we are much farther away from our atmospheric (hypersonic) and exoatmospheric (interplanetary/interstellar) goals than many people seem to believe. I wish it were otherwise. I grew up expecting to be taking vacations on the Moon and Mars by now, and here I am living in a world that currently lacks even a commercial supersonic transport.

The main point of my earlier posts was simply that Ben Rich did not say what some people claim he said. Most of his so-called quotes are not traceable back to a reliable source. The Keller/Harzan accounts of his 1993 UCLA speech are based solely on memory and were only reported years after the event. The overall description of Rich's presentation matches (for the most part) his standard script, though I'm not sure that I believe he ended that talk with a discussion of the F-117A. By 1993, he was ending with the YF-22 winning the Advanced Tactical Fighter fly-off competition, something the Skunk Works was justifiably proud of at the time. Perhaps he mentioned it earlier in his UCLA speech, or maybe Keller and Harzan simply forgot. It is not really important. I won't hold it against Keller and Harzan that they describe his UFO slide as a black disk flying into space, rather than as a metallic flying saucer in a cloudy sky with a sunburst. Their description is not bad for being based on memory, and I was just looking at a photocopy of the original slide last week. Quoting Rich as saying, "We have the technology to take E.T. home" is a close but memory-distorted version of what he actually said, as evidenced by his presentation scripts, which he followed closely.



posted on Aug, 22 2013 @ 04:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Shadowhawk
 

Shadowhawk, I think you've accurately addressed the ET question, but I've got another one. Kelly Johnson had a UFO sighting of his own and on at least one occasion contacted Project Blue book on behalf of an employee's sighting: www.fold3.com...

Supposedly a saucer shape was discussed when designing a stealth plane. There are a few other connections some good, others minor, but there seems to have been a legitimate interest at Lockheed in flying saucers. Real or not, it looks like some thought was given to how they might fly.

You seem to have reliable information on their history, what can you tell us about Lockheed's interest in flying saucers?



posted on Aug, 22 2013 @ 04:30 PM
link   

"What we have to do is find out where Einstein went wrong"


Yes, hypothetically if you want warp drive, it would be nice if Einstein were wrong.

So far General Relativity has passed extraordinary tests. So far, not wrong.



posted on Aug, 22 2013 @ 07:17 PM
link   
reply to post by sealing
 

I actually remembered that when you mentioned it. It was found elsewhere too in a different article/book. Maybe I can find that one and pass it along to you later as well....MS



posted on Aug, 22 2013 @ 07:43 PM
link   
reply to post by CardDown
 


I recall that Kelly Johnson filed two UFO reports. One included observations by a Lockheed pilot. As far as I can tell, these sightings had no direct effect on Johnson's aircraft designs. Each airframe shape was driven by a combination of mission requirements and available manufacturing and materials technology.

Johnson was a brilliant aeronautical engineer. The design evolution that eventually culminated in the SR-71 is a testament to his innovation. Turning his "paper airplane" (blueprint) into flyable hardware necessitated the creation of new manufacturing methods and then simplifying them so that ordinary workers could easily and consistently turn out aircraft on an assembly line. I have had the opportunity to study in detail the manufacturing techniques, materials, and structures that went into the Blackbirds. The most amazing thing is how is used the conventional to make something that was unconventional for its time.

His successor, Ben Rich, had an entirely new set of challenges when developing the early stealth aircraft. He ultimately let the electrical engineers and radar specialists drive the shape of the airplanes, which had to be both invisible to radar and flyable by an average military fighter pilot. Again, innovative manufacturing and materials processes were used to exploit conventional technology to build an unconventional airplane. For all that the F-117A looked like a vehicle from another world, it was startlingly ordinary in its design and construction. I still find it hard to believe such a boxy shape could fly so well, but redundant flight control computers make up for a multitude of (aerodynamic) sins.

In both the above cases, the designers followed a very logical evolutionary path to reach the final aircraft configuration. This is clear from studying the various drawings, radar and wind-tunnel models, mock-ups, and prototypes. In neither case, nor any other that I have encountered, did Lockheed engineers appear influenced by UFO reports.



posted on Aug, 22 2013 @ 10:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Shadowhawk
 


I appreciate your thoughtful & knowledgeable posts.

I'm going to take a wild guess -- you're not buying the stories from Joseph P. Farrell ("Reich of the Black Sun," etc.) about advanced Nazi technology based on "Aryan" physics.

The story goes that the Nazi scientists were able to surpass or bypass Einstein's physics for something superior, and they were able to create flying discs using completely different methods of propulsion.

There's a growing number of people who believe UFO's are not ET created, but rather US experiments with Nazi tech.

I believe in ET's, but I do not dismiss the possibility that "we" are experimenting with Nazi tech, among other things.



posted on Aug, 23 2013 @ 05:47 AM
link   
I for one believe that we have the technology to travel to the stars. Following is a thesis written by Thomas E Bearden in 1979. That is almost 30 years back.

A Mind/Brain/Matter Model Consistent with Quantum Physics and UFO Phenomenao

I had formulated the Gravitational Electrical Effects theory in 1987 and sent it to major US universities.

So I am sure we have made great deal of progress and the fact that we are observing some amazing technologies in the sky could be developed based on the above and other similar theories.



posted on Aug, 24 2013 @ 06:12 PM
link   
I used to read the astronautical papers while at university, and many lead to papers on Gauge Theory, Octionic gravity, and Heim's Field Theory. From all the Powerpoint and PDF files that are out there, it describes space-time as actually being eight dimensional and super-symmetric, but for observers it actually has the appearance of being four-dimensional (XYZ and time).

Not sure exactly what the other four dimensions do, but perhaps the idea would be that they are scrunched up tiny like grains of sand on a beach. From a human perspective, a beach may appear to be two dimensional (you can run along the shore or down to the ocean), but to a little beach ant, every grain of sand is actually adds two dimensions, and the depth of the beach yet another dimension.

www.hpcc-space.de...

www.hpcc-space.de...



posted on Aug, 26 2013 @ 03:13 AM
link   
On Ben Rich's book 'Skunk Works' he detailed the time of Stealth Development and in their experimentation they found out that the faceted diamond is the best shaping for all-aspect stealth. Then he added that the flying saucer is perfect shape for Low Observable / Stealth platform but the E.T wont tell him the secret.

A) did ben rich get a chance to interrogate captured ET and grilling them on their technology ?

or

B) ben rich just making a joke

i would go by "B" but someone deep in conspiracy theories might think different and choose "A"

A side note, Ben Rich described himself (and their fellow engineer at skunk works) as practical jokers and usualy played pranks to other people ( some skunk works engineer created a square-shaped cannon in his spare time and firing them from the roof )



posted on Aug, 26 2013 @ 08:18 AM
link   
reply to post by milomilo
 


Lenticular (disk-shaped) bodies have a been studies for a variety of aerospace purposes. In the early 1960s NASA considered testing a lenticular design for a wingless lifting body reentry vehicle as a possible candidate for a manned spacecraft. Unfortunately, while the shape offered fairly good reentry characteristics it was extremely unstable aerodynamically and was therefore rejected.

Lockheed conducted radar tests of lenticular shapes in 1958 while developing anti-radar technology for high-altitude reconnaissance aircraft. As Ben Rich later pointed out, such shapes are pretty stealthy. Unfortunately, once again, they are aerodynamically problematic.

And, yes, Rich and his colleagues at the Skunk Works had quite a sense of humor.



posted on Aug, 27 2013 @ 03:41 AM
link   
reply to post by ATSZOMBIE
 


From "Area 51: The Dreamland Chronicles" by David Darlington
www.amazon.com...


[ Jim Goodall : ] "Ben Rich told me twice before he died: 'We have things at Area 51 that you and the best minds in the world won't even be able to conceive that we have for 30 or 40 years, and won't be made public for another 50.' A friend of mine at Lockheed told me: 'We have things in the Nevada desert that are alien to your way of thinking -- far beyond anything you see on Star Trek.

www.meetup.com...



edit on 8/27/2013 by this_is_who_we_are because: typo



posted on Nov, 2 2013 @ 06:35 AM
link   
Peter Merlin wraps it up in an article here:
Sun-Lite



posted on Mar, 15 2014 @ 05:11 PM
link   
The TV show Hangar 1 is repeating these claims about what Ben Rich said about UFOs. I'd say they were exaggerated to the point of fiction.

There's a big difference between what he said and wrote, and what they wanted to hear.



posted on Mar, 15 2014 @ 05:27 PM
link   
reply to post by Shadowhawk
 



And, yes, Rich and his colleagues at the Skunk Works had quite a sense of humor.

As well, alluding to far superior technology (contrived or not) gives rise to doubt in potential enemies minds.

SOP



posted on Mar, 15 2014 @ 05:38 PM
link   
reply to post by CardDown
 


Thank you CardDown for posting that!
Great find.



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 01:29 PM
link   
a reply to: ATSZOMBIE
The claims about Ben Rich come up so often in UFO discussions, I thought I'd gather the genuine information in one place for easy reference:

Part one covers an examination by aviation historian Peter Merlin that began here on ATS:
Ben Rich, Area 51 & Taking ET Home

Part two examines the claims that at Area 51,we have technology that would "make George Lucas drool."
Lockheed, the Area 51 Interceptors & John Lear



posted on Oct, 20 2014 @ 02:25 PM
link   
a reply to: CardDown

Nice article and it condenses just about everything we'd like to know about the legendary Ben Rich 'quote.' Good to see PurrlGurrl is still out there too.

Although I'm a dyed in the wool student of ufology, it's a perpetual headache that so many others have muddied the waters for the rest of us. Only recently, I was looking for some old fireball/bolide reports from a purely astronomical perspective. Most search results linked to UFO sites and I gave up in frustration.

Eddie Bullard has written a great essay for Paranthropology that discusses similar issues. It's like there's a point in time when dedicated anomalists have a Kevin Bacon moment - they realise that the 'information' is sometimes separated from the facts by 6 degrees.






top topics



 
12
<< 1   >>

log in

join