Aug 8 2009 Arlington Texas UFO - A MASSIVE coverup

reply to post by Mr_skepticc


You are a party pooper you know?
I was getting all excited and you let the air out of my balloon.
Thanks for taking the trouble to actually call and make inquiries.
I think a cover up is possible but your explanation is highly likely as well!
Cheers!

reply to post by expat2368


The F35 explaination jives with the facts they are in flight testing at Ft Worth for several years. Two years ago, the first A type had an incedent similar to this. Poorly designed electronics for the flight control system arc'd causing a fire to the area. Fortunately, there was backup system that handled perfectly.

reply to post by GrOuNd_ZeRo
I`d love to if the AF put up articles about security arrangements.
So others use RAM, the AF isn`t going to try to protect the RAM they use? The RAM used in thr -22 is more advanced than anything else in use. The USAF has had RAM coatings since the 70s, but this is about the 4th or 5th type they`ve used. As for transporting military equipment it`s not the same.

Originally posted by shinzaun

Originally posted by beebs
Here is some good ol' ATS coverage of the event itself:
landing on i20? thread

I am so certain I saw a clear as day video of a saucer on a flatbed. It is a real loss I can't find it right now.

It might be the video that no longer works in this thread about the event, but I can't tell:
Allegedly UFO was Transported down Dallas Highway

I too saw the video of which you speak, a large flatbed truck with a saucer shaped object on the back. From what i recall the video was taken from an elevated position looking down onto the passing truck that travelled from right to left and out of shot.

That video is on this thread somewhere. It's from a different incident described both as being filmed in the US and in Russia by different people. I don't know it's true providence, but two of the vans following the convoy appear to be European models. That incident also had two saucers both of which were MUCH flatter.

reply to post by MR BOB


Or he's more clever than you think.

Originally posted by yzzyUK
Excellent work Mr Skeptic!

Anyone know which part of teh plane the two objects are?

I can't see anything 'saucer' shaped on this image

www.lytron.com...

Image of fuselage

www.murdoconline.net...

[edit on 16-12-2009 by yzzyUK]

Not only that, but, man, the object on the back of that truck is WAYYY too big to be any part of an F-35. Did it pop into Mr Skeptics head "Geez, sometimes F-35's appear lenticular shaped and about 60% larger for no apparent reason"

-rrr

Originally posted by Misoir

Originally posted by beebs
Very interesting. Classic MIB story.

I do recall recently seeing footage of a large flatbed with, what clearly appeared to be a saucer on the back.

Was there any press on this event?

Yes there was media coverage about this story and a video on their website. Here is the site: macedoniaonline.eu...

That page appears blank.

-rrr

Originally posted by Majestic RNA
reply to post by expat2368

 

Right, thanks

Your right about something, there does seem to be a few on hear determined to derail your thread, and to me the phone call to the manufactures doesn't fall right, why would a military contractor (even if they are civilian) give time to some cold call about UFO's on the back of a lorry?? just seems strange to me...

I'm going to watch this thread, I have no idea if your right or wrong yet, but it's interesting all the same.

I second that. I think that all of the "Come on, how foolish do you have to be to believe that" type of replies cannot come from genuine members because they don't appeal to logic, they appeal to ego.

Anybody claiming that they are "absolutely sure" they know what this is, without giving some actual credentials to back it up (i.e., they were there and can prove it) have to be considered with a grain of salt. This is a conspiracy site, it is surprising that there would be any real members that will take a claim such as "that was a plane" at face value without confronting the obvious questions such as "how come it doesn't look like one"

True skeptics who have a leg to stand on will also come up with answers to such obvious question in anticipation. There would have been a side by side picture with the lenticular shape object on one side and the plane on the other and some correspondence showing how come it somehow seems to look like that from that angle with what appears to be a gigantic cross section for an airplane with very thin wings.

Note the other tell tale sign from such derail attempts: an eagerness to have the "case closed" Deflection of follow up questions, etcetera.

"Nice try" to those guys.

-rrr

reply to post by beebs


As I read this story... I was picturing that video... Glad you posted it!

Originally posted by Mr_skepticc
Here is the f-35c, which is the model they are testing down there in Dallas, this is what it would look like with it's wings and back tale fin removed for transport.

Look familiar folks?

Original photo

[edit on 16-12-2009 by Mr_skepticc]

And here is the f-35c where the wings would have been taking off correctly.

[edit on 16-12-2009 by Mr_skepticc]

Looks familar, but totally incorrect in size. The object on the truck is aproximately three times the width of the truck which would make it right about 30 feet in diameter.

The F-35 is about 35 feet wide, INCLUDING the wings. there is no way that the wings for an F-35 are only 3 feet long.

-rrr

here's another report.



[edit on 16-12-2009 by hateeternal]

reply to post by Mr_skepticc


I mean try to mentally imagine how big a pilot would have to be for the object on the truck to be the fuselage of a fighter, and the pilot works out to be a giant.

-rrr

Originally posted by Mr_skepticc
reply to post by heyo

 

Thank you, I got involved because I too wanted to know what it was.

What prompted you to look up that government contractor? just out of curiosity?

-rrr

Originally posted by cavscout11cav

Originally posted by Pryde87
The military officer in charge advised them that this was not going to be “pretty” and that “they had no time to wrap up the present, nice and neat”. "

So its not "debunked" before it got started. Also who said it was just being transported? They had s situation they needed to get "cleaned up" before the sun rose. So something happened, they had to pull out the stops, bring in locals and get things done in a hurry.

I am going to have to say it was debunked before it started. If they didnt have time to "wrap the present", how did they find time to call all of the officers back to the police station, brief them, sign non disclosure forms, and get them back out to their posts.
For no time to tarp the "UFO", they sure had a lot of time to do other things.

[edit on 16-12-2009 by cavscout11cav]

[edit on 16-12-2009 by cavscout11cav]

Or..... it was still too hot to be covered with something flammable.

-rrr

reply to post by rickyrrr
The F-35C this was originally speculated to be has a wingspan of 43 feet, and the F-22 which fits better has a wingspan of 44 feet 6 inches.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by rickyrrr

 

The F-35C this was originally speculated to be has a wingspan of 43 feet, and the F-22 which fits better has a wingspan of 44 feet 6 inches.

The ratio between the cabin width and the total width for the picture posted by Mr Skeptic just about 4. The cabin is just slightly wider than shoulder width, for a human. Let's be conservative and say that is 3 feet. Let's say it's a guy with huge shoulders that goes in that jet.

That would make this fuselage section roughly 12 feet wide. there would be about a foot of overhang on either side of the flat bed, which is rougly 10 feet wide.

So even if you get really nit picky with the wingspan of the jet, the error in size, assuming this was an F-35 fuselage, is more than a factor of 2, maybe even 2.5

How exactly does an F-35 end up looking approximately twice as big as it should? and also way curvier and smoother and more rounded? I mean, why am I even having this discussion?

-rrr



[edit on 16-12-2009 by rickyrrr]

While I think this guys story may be bunk, after looking at the Armap enhanced photos, I don't think this is the cockpit of any jet. It's far too circular. And this isn't an F35 anything, unless it's seriously pre-production, as it looks nothing like the final product.

So.. maybe a turbine, maybe something else, perhaps a UFO.. who can say. Not a jet imo though.

Originally posted by astronomine
They most assuredly would not transport a UFO (or anything close to this nature, including top secret projects) uncovered. The idea that they were ill-prepared and couldn't cover the thing due to lack of time and preparation is preposterous.

It is not preposterous. The object may have crashed *without advance warning*. Look at how hard it is for NASA to retrieve unmanned craft even when they can control the landing location and time. Sometimes they fail miserably. Besides, if we were talking about a saucer shaped TARP on the back of a flat bed, wouldn't this thread still be here?

-rrr

Originally posted by fleabit
While I think this guys story may be bunk, after looking at the Armap enhanced photos, I don't think this is the cockpit of any jet. It's far too circular. And this isn't an F35 anything, unless it's seriously pre-production, as it looks nothing like the final product.

So.. maybe a turbine, maybe something else, perhaps a UFO.. who can say. Not a jet imo though.

I seriously don't think it's a turbine, I work in a power Station in the mechanical engineering department and work with them, turbines are cylindrical and long in shape with blades protruding from them, same for any turbine be it for a power station, ship or plane, and yes I agree it doesn't look like the photo's of a F35c, but all the evidence I've looked at throughout this thread point to the fact the OP has holes in the story he/she puts forward.... it may well have been a shell of an aircraft with other parts wrapped up with it, it's not unknown for transport flatbed lorry’s to do this.... I still don't think it was a UFO, but I don't have an answer to what it really was on that truck... needs more work on it, the contract lorry owners, like I posted before, would be a good place to start, if they can confirm what it was they moved, when and to where we'll have our answers...

OK.. 1 Question..

1. Where's the mound?? The cockpit glass is integrated with the fuselage at the back end (Gives you that nice curve on all aircraft). Even if this vehicle was wrapped in shrink wrap... Where's the cockpit mound?