UFOs of the Future: Will these aircraft be mistaken for "Alien Ships" in the years to come?

page: 2
29
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 3 2014 @ 05:08 PM
link   
Here are some more:









posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 01:45 AM
link   
Highly likely that these crafts will be mistaken. It makes me think of that strange small helicopter that crashed near Osama Bin Ladens hideout. Goes to show there is probably a lot more technology unknown to the general public, and probably already mistaken for alien aircraft.



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 07:32 AM
link   
Nowadays we already can't see the difference between birds/planes/lanterns/stars/UFO's/etc. in the sky, so I doubt it'll get any harder in the future. Who knows, maybe we'll have more advanced UFO detection equipment



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 01:14 PM
link   

TheWiseDwarf
Nowadays we already can't see the difference between birds/planes/lanterns/stars/UFO's/etc. in the sky, so I doubt it'll get any harder in the future. Who knows, maybe we'll have more advanced UFO detection equipment


But will we have more advanced UFO researchers?

Anyone have a photo of J. Allen Hynek with his pipe and one eyebrow raised? Seems appropriate here



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 09:30 PM
link   
Kick-butt thread. Even some of the pics from the Lockheed P-791 vid looked like UFO pics we have seen in the past. Sticky-thread material here. S&F.



posted on Jan, 4 2014 @ 09:39 PM
link   

The GUT
Kick-butt thread. Even some of the pics from the Lockheed P-791 vid looked like UFO pics we have seen in the past. Sticky-thread material here. S&F.


That would rock if this became a sticky because with all the development going on there are bound to be other objects that can join this list.



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 08:22 AM
link   

JadeStar
This coupled with the research that some UFO "waves" may have been caused by the testing or operation of secret or lesser known aircraft lead me to wondering if there were any things in development now that while not exactly "black projects" are little known to the general public.


Thank you for a very interesting thread. I've been collating material relating to secret aircraft causing ufo sightings in the past, so your work on current/future projects that may cause such sightings is very interesting to me.

Can you expand on what "research" and which particular waves you had in mind when posting the above part of your OP?

I haven't seen any convincing research along those lines.

I'm familiar with various claims along these lines (particularly by Gerald K Haines in his article “A Die-Hard Issue : CIA's Role in the Study of UFOs, 1947-90” published in "Studies in Intelligence", Issue 1997 Vol. 1, No. 1) but have so far found the evidence for large-scale waves being caused by sightings of black project aircraft to be rather limited. There is far better evidence of many sightings being caused by seeing normal aircraft in unusual conditions and/or slightly unusual aircraft (such as advertising aircraft).

You are probably familiar with the article by Gerald Haines, but for the sake of anyone unfamiliar with it, the text is available on a page on the CIA's website and includes the following:



In November 1954, CIA had entered into the world of high technology with its U-2 overhead reconnaissance project. Working with Lockheed's Advanced Development facility in Burbank, California, known as the Skunk Works, and Kelly Johnson, an eminent aeronautical engineer, the Agency by August 1955 was testing a high-altitude experimental aircraft--the U-2. It could fly at 60,000 feet; in the mid-1950s, most commercial airliners flew between 10,000 feet and 20,000 feet. Consequently, once the U-2 started test flights, commercial pilots and air traffic controllers began reporting a large increase in UFO sightings. (44) (U)

The early U-2s were silver (they were later painted black) and reflected the rays from the sun, especially at sunrise and sunset. They often appeared as fiery objects to observers below. Air Force BLUE BOOK investigators aware of the secret U-2 flights tried to explain away such sightings by linking them to natural phenomena such as ice crystals and temperature inversions. By checking with the Agency's U-2 Project Staff in Washington, BLUE BOOK investigators were able to attribute many UFO sightings to U-2 flights. They were careful, however, not to reveal the true cause of the sighting to the public.

According to later estimates from CIA officials who worked on the U-2 project and the OXCART (SR-71, or Blackbird) project, over half of all UFO reports from the late 1950s through the 1960s were accounted for by manned reconnaissance flights (namely the U-2) over the United States. (45) This led the Air Force to make misleading and deceptive statements to the public in order to allay public fears and to protect an extraordinarily sensitive national security project. While perhaps justified, this deception added fuel to the later conspiracy theories and the coverup controversy of the 1970s. The percentage of what the Air Force considered unexplained UFO sightings fell to 5.9 percent in 1955 and to 4 percent in 1956. (46)


(44) See Gregory W. Pedlow and Donald E. Welzenbach, The Central Intelligence Agency and Overhead Reconnaissance: The U-2 and OXCART Programs, 1954-1974 (Washington, DC: CIA History Staff, 1992), pp. 72-73.

(45) See Pedlow and Welzenbach, Overhead Reconnaissance, pp. 72-73. This also was confirmed in a telephone interview between the author and John Parongosky, 26 July 1994. Parongosky oversaw the day-to-day affairs of the OXCART program.

(46) See Jacobs, The UFO Controversy, p. 135.


That article, particularly the claim that "over half of all UFO reports from the late 1950s through the 1960s were accounted for by manned reconnaissance flights (namely the U-2)", is HIGHLY controversial. Anyone following up on this claim may be assisted by the book references I've collated in a table relating to the article by Haines. See, in particular, the article by Bruce Maccabee an article entitled “CIA's UFO Explanation Is Preposterous”, which focuses on the material at footnotes 44 and 45 of Gerald Haines’ article. This article by Bruce Maccabee available online on his website at:

brumac.8k.com...



This explanation for many ("over half of all") UFO reports is new in the sense that it has never before been publicized. It was not contained within documents released by the CIA in December, 1978 after a lawsuit filed under the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act (FOIPA) by Ground Saucer Watch, a civilian UFO organization which closed in the early 1980's. According to Mr. Haines the U-2 was reported as a UFO because "the early U-2's were silver (they were later painted black) and reflected the rays of the sun, especially at sunrise and sunset. They often appeared as fiery objects to observers below. Air Force BLUE BOOK investigators, aware of the secret U-2 flights, tried to explain away such sightings by linking them to natural phenomena such as ice crystals and temperature inversions. By checking with the Agency's U-2 Project Staff in Washington, BLUE BOOK investigators were able to attribute many UFO sightings to U-2 flights. They were careful, however, not to reveal the true cause of the sighting to the public."

Project BLUE BOOK was the publicly known Air Force effort to collect UFO sightings and explain, or at least categorize, them as explainable or unexplainable. Project Blue Book ran from early 1951 through 1969. When it closed Blue Book and its predecessors (Project Sign, 1948, and Project Grudge, 1949-1951) had collected about 13,000 sightings, of which about 700 were left unexplained.

The claim that the U-2 caused "over half of all UFO reports from the late 1950's through the 1960's" is, to put it gently, preposterous. The U-2, with its 80 ft long by 6 ft wide (front to back) wingspan flew at 60-70,000 feet and at that altitude was essentially invisible during the day.

It created no contrail because of the lack of moisture at that altitude. It was, after all, intended to be invisible! During the hour before sunrise and the hour following sunset it would be possible for an unpainted aircraft to reflect the sun enough to be visible, perhaps with a reddish glow resulting from the reddening of sunlight (caused by passage of the sunlight through the atmosphere, which acts like a filter that removes blue and green relative to red). High altitude balloons (e.g., Project Skyhook) did cause some UFO reports during these times of day and were so identified by the Air Force and civilian investigators. However, only a small fraction of sightings occur during these times. The largest fraction of sightings is at night when the U-2 can't be seen and the next largest fraction is during the daytime.


I'm currently looking into a related few issues so would welcome any clarification you can give about your above reference to relevant "research" on ufo waves.
edit on 5-1-2014 by IsaacKoi because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2014 @ 02:36 PM
link   

JadeStar

1ofthe9
Most of the recent work seems focused on aerostats as tethered radar and electro-optical sensor platforms. I actually saw one (I think anyway!) while I was in Yuma for Christmas. I can definitely see them misidentified as UFOs.


They do look weird don't they?

Imagine when these huge cargo ships or air cruisers start frequenting the skies flying over areas far from where they are launched and seen lit up at night by people not familiar with them.

I expect there to be another big UFO "flap" around 2018-2023 or so when a lot of these things may be in service.


I expect a big UFO flap between 2014 and 2015.
Just a feeling can't explain it.
I've had this feeling before and it feels right at the moment.



posted on Jan, 6 2014 @ 01:00 AM
link   

bluesman1955

JadeStar

1ofthe9
Most of the recent work seems focused on aerostats as tethered radar and electro-optical sensor platforms. I actually saw one (I think anyway!) while I was in Yuma for Christmas. I can definitely see them misidentified as UFOs.


They do look weird don't they?

Imagine when these huge cargo ships or air cruisers start frequenting the skies flying over areas far from where they are launched and seen lit up at night by people not familiar with them.

I expect there to be another big UFO "flap" around 2018-2023 or so when a lot of these things may be in service.


I expect a big UFO flap between 2014 and 2015.
Just a feeling can't explain it.
I've had this feeling before and it feels right at the moment.


You may be right. It will be due to stuff like this I think.

UFOs as part of multimedia art performance.



posted on Jan, 6 2014 @ 04:22 AM
link   

JadeStar

It is plausible that at least some of the slow moving large objects people have been seeing since the 90s are rigid airships. The large flying triangles and flying V have been rumored to be a DARPA project for a huge stealthy troop/cargo carrier.


Only plausible if as part of a deliberate disinfo programme.

Otherwise why the lights seen on most occasions and lack of sightings between any possible launch and deployment sites ?



posted on Jan, 6 2014 @ 05:32 AM
link   

chunder

JadeStar

It is plausible that at least some of the slow moving large objects people have been seeing since the 90s are rigid airships. The large flying triangles and flying V have been rumored to be a DARPA project for a huge stealthy troop/cargo carrier.


Only plausible if as part of a deliberate disinfo programme.

Otherwise why the lights seen on most occasions and lack of sightings between any possible launch and deployment sites ?



The lack of sightings between sites could be explained by people chalking it up to being an airship. Not everyone who sees something strange thinks it is a UFO and not everyone who sees a UFO reports it.
edit on 6-1-2014 by JadeStar because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2014 @ 07:26 AM
link   

JadeStar

chunder

JadeStar

It is plausible that at least some of the slow moving large objects people have been seeing since the 90s are rigid airships. The large flying triangles and flying V have been rumored to be a DARPA project for a huge stealthy troop/cargo carrier.


Only plausible if as part of a deliberate disinfo programme.

Otherwise why the lights seen on most occasions and lack of sightings between any possible launch and deployment sites ?



The lack of sightings between sites could be explained by people chalking it up to being an airship. Not everyone who sees something strange thinks it is a UFO and not everyone who sees a UFO reports it.
edit on 6-1-2014 by JadeStar because: (no reason given)


Well, you mentioned Pheonix and Stephenville and I'm not aware of anyone coming forward stating they saw an airship anywhere near the area ?

Then you have the size issue, then the lights issue. It does seem that the rumours of a large FT or V troop or cargo carrier are as a result of the (UFO) sightings as opposed to any actual evidence that a craft is in use.

Aside even from all other associated issues, if in use then by it's very nature it would be secret so how does that explain the sightings ?

Not saying the basic premise of this thread isn't viable, or that some sightings aren't airships, just that I don't think a secret dirigible stacks up as an explanation for the above and some other large FT sightings.



posted on Jan, 12 2014 @ 10:44 AM
link   

Zcustosmorum
You know it's damn weird when future aircraft designs seem very similar to UFO reports dating back over 50 years.

And I still don't see how the craft in this thread can perform the types of manouvers described by witnesses involved in above mentioned incidents.


Its not weird for me, its FUNNY.

The military saw "it", saw its capability, really really really want to have "it", so they create "it".

Too bad, the UFO look like a saucer because they reasons, the military on the other hand - just copying the design without knowing why. So we end up like the Avrocar and this stuff.

Its like watching people using chopsticks to eat steak.



posted on Jan, 12 2014 @ 12:06 PM
link   
reply to post by JadeStar
 


I think you shouldn't leave out drones since I think they'll be a primary candidate for misidentifications. The reason I think this is because they're so small and people can mistake small things for distant things. They also don't have human occupants, so they can move faster and stop faster than usual. They also can be computer controlled to fly in swarms which may trick some observers. They may also use more dangerous technologies since no pilot is threatened if they crash.
edit on 12-1-2014 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 12 2014 @ 05:02 PM
link   

jonnywhite
reply to post by JadeStar
 


I think you shouldn't leave out drones since I think they'll be a primary candidate for misidentifications. The reason I think this is because they're so small and people can mistake small things for distant things. They also don't have human occupants, so they can move faster and stop faster than usual. They also can be computer controlled to fly in swarms which may trick some observers. They may also use more dangerous technologies since no pilot is threatened if they crash.
edit on 12-1-2014 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)


The only reason I left out drones was because they have typically been smaller than manned aircraft and can't account for the large objects people often report.

You're welcome to add drones to this thread though. Particularly the strange looking ones which could be misidentified.



top topics
 
29
<< 1   >>

log in

join