Test Flights Are Not UFOs

A

Anonymous

Guest
Why do people in the ufo community find it difficult to accept that a certain percentage of ufo sightings are just military prototypes being put through their paces?

Especially the flying triangles. These are becoming so common place in the sky it is only a matter of a couple years before these craft go in to main stream production.

Is it not time to stop thinking of the flying triangles has ufos. And just see them has future production models?

This would allow other sightings to be taken up with more focus.
 
greets

dunno about anyone else but most ufo researchers i've come into contact with do assume that amongst the "unknowns" a certain % will be aircraft of terrestrial origin that are unacknowledged or misidentified.

as for FT - well my suspicion is that they are of terrestrial origin (probably USA) - the question is why aren't they acknowledged as such by the government etc?
 
Thanks for reply.

Thanks for your reply.
There should be some sort of "Gentlemans Agreement" between the ufo community and the military.

If certain craft can be acknowledged has " work in progress" this can allow the buffs to focus on the weird stuff.
Its a bit like train spotting, watching them becomes mundane after a while.

Instead of being history students, the ufo community needs to change its strategy. Approach the issue from another angle.

When i think of Roswell i think of marketing products. There is too much inertia. We need new people to step forward who dont have any agenda to sell. Hearing about Blue Book for another 50 years does not appeal to me .

Is this posting too radical?
 
No, your posting is not too radical at all. That is what a discussion forum is. Also, though, you seem to be confusing the term UFO with spaceship.

If experimental governmental aircraft are whizzing through our skies and somebody sees them, it is indeed a UFO as the craft is unidentifiable. It may come into production and be given a cool name like a Ramrod or something and then it will be identified.

Even if the same triangle craft has been seen 100 times, it is still a UFO if we don't know where it comes from, who operates it or what it does. Something doesn't have to be extraterrestrial in order to qualify as a UFO.
 
Also, though, you seem to be confusing the term UFO with spaceship.

Your right Ringo and FT 203 has a great article in the UFO files section explaining exactly this distinction.
 
Common sense

Can a bit of common sense not be applied to the Flying Triangles?

If it is hovering over a military base can we not assume its just a test flight? We know its military. We know it has permission to be there. We know that sightings of have increased. We know that triangles have been sighted with military insignia on them.

Can there not be agreement that the triangles are not et/ or "ufo".

Then this would allow investigators to focus on the stuff that needs genuine attention. eg; Stockhausens Syndrome symptoms diagnosed in abductee victims
 
Re: Thanks for reply.

wowsah156 said:
Thanks for your reply.
There should be some sort of "Gentlemans Agreement" between the ufo community and the military.

If certain craft can be acknowledged has " work in progress" this can allow the buffs to focus on the weird stuff.
Its a bit like train spotting, watching them becomes mundane after a while.

Ahhhhhh but it doesn't suit the military to clear up the confusion. Not only would they not want to own up to top secret aircraft but UFO reports have helped them partly obscure their test flights.
 
Researchers could assume fairly safely that they are just test flights, however, we shouldn't assume that the triangles aren't genuine ufos since nobody really knows at this point. I'm staying on the fence with this one.
 
If you're testing a new stealth aircraft, flying it over a populated area and seeing what - if anything - people report seeing may well be the best way of assessing its 'stealthiness'.

However, flying your craft over a foreign nation - even over a friendly country like Belgium - without at least letting their airforce know your plans does seem a rather risky strategy. Why needlessly put your pilots at risk of being shot down - along with some very expensive hardware?
 
"UFO reports have helped them partly obscure their test flights."

There is evidence that a lot of the flying saucer fever in the 40's and 50's was cooked up by the military for exactly this purpose.

The is absolutely no way that the military are going to acknowledge the existince of a covert aircraft, far less admit that "yes, it's triagular, large and capable of moving very slowly."
 
Distraction

Even though the military are not going to change their attitude on this,
would time not be better spent on genuine cases that are happening all the time now?

What about the increasing reports of one to one contact with the entites/et's?
Why waste time on a military prototype?
 
Re: Distraction

wowsah156 said:
Even though the military are not going to change their attitude on this,
would time not be better spent on genuine cases that are happening all the time now?

What about the increasing reports of one to one contact with the entites/et's?
Why waste time on a military prototype?

Well for some people the secret military aircraft are at an least as important part of the story - as this documentary tried to demonstrate (not successully in my opinion) it can go into some equally strange areas:

www.forteantimes.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=23772

Equally withut some study of potential secret military aircraft you can't exlcude them from your study of UFOs in attempts to find out what else is going on in the UFO arena - flying saucers, earthlights, etc.

Also people are focusing on reports on one to one contact - you can have both at the same time.
 
For me, the thought that many UFO sightings are the result of testing military technology is quite encouraging. Extra terrestrial visitation is very much up in the air (so to speak), but military testing of undisclosed aircraft is almost certainly happening all the time, so they are definitely out there, it's just a question of being in the right place to maximise your chances of seeing them.

As for BBDs (triangles), I would go with two options:

Option one: very heavy lift airships in development as an alternaitve to surface shipping or the deployment of heavy armour/personnel.

Opton two: Basic "outline shape" tests of large scale holographic projection, (aka the "prophet hologram").

Option one seems more immediately plausible, in that the UK MoD has expressed an interest in the development of heavy lift airships (artists impressions resemble a giant 'Thunderbird 2'). As with so many other UK military innovations, "development" may actually mean "purchase from the US".

Option two may have some credibility though, in that numerous BBD sightings have occurred over populous areas, with some apparently "appearing out of thin air" or displaying apparently impossible flight characteristics. In this scenario, the hologram is deliberately projected onto areas where it will be seen by the general public, with the intention of gaining feedback via press reports of UFO sightings in repsect of how "real" the projection appears to be.
 
As I understand it, the biggest hurdle to overcome with this technology is that you need to have a mirror behind the hologram (from the viewers' position). As far as I know, there are two ways of placing a mirror of sufficient size for large scale aerial projection:

The first is to place a hardware mirror at very high altitude or in orbit, in the way the Russians did in 1993, ostensibly to experiment with the possibility of lighting their northern cities through the winter using reflected sun light.

The second is to use the earth's atmosphere by ionising it to create a temperature inversion which acts as a mirror. Roughly, this is what the US HAARP (high frequency active auroral research program) facility does, ostensibly creating atmospheric mirrors for use in 'over the horizon' radar.
 
This was on Newsnight tonight (you can possibly watch again on the Beeb's site) they ha a guy from the Scottish Earth Mysteries Society on as well as Colonel Poopoo (not his real name) some retired airfroce chappie who poopooed the idea.

Report fuels spy plane theories

By Meirion Jones
BBC Newsnight

The UK knows more than it is saying about top secret American aircraft projects, recently declassified documents reveal.

Deep inside a previously secret Ministry of Defence report are a few pages which will reignite one of the biggest internet conspiracy questions - Is the US Air Force building secret spy planes which can cross the sky at 3,000mph?

The plane, which is often referred to as Aurora, is supposed to be a follow on from the U2 spy plane and the 2,000mph SR71 Blackbird, both of which were first developed and flown in secrecy as 'Black' projects.

The MoD report from 2000 says the USAF plans to produce "highly supersonic vehicles at Mach 4 to 6" and hypersonic unmanned craft which will fly in the upper atmosphere and in space. In 2003, the USAF revealed it had been working on a hypersonic unmanned craft - the Falcon - but denied building an Aurora-like Mach 4 to 6 aircraft.

The Aurora has 100,000 web pages devoted to it - a lot for an aircraft which may not exist.

According to Jane's Defence Review a third of USAF spending on research and development and procurement goes on classified projects. Some of that helps pay for the development of spy satellites and intelligence activities. But a sizable proportion goes on the development of secret manned and unmanned aircraft.

Area 51

For more than 50 years some of the world's most exotic aircraft have been developed at Groom Lake in Nevada - otherwise knows as Area 51 - where the appearance of strange shapes in the sky - planes which officially did not exist - led to rumours that captured UFOs were being flown out of there by the US military.

The U2 first took to the sky at Groom Lake in 1955 and stayed secret for five years till the Russians shot one down over Svedlovsk and captured the pilot Gary Powers.

The Blackbird SR71 spy plane also secretly flew from Groom Lake in the early 1960s and the F117 Stealth Fighter and its prototypes flew from there for ten years before they were publicly revealed.

Huge projects have been hidden from public gaze. The USAF spent $20 billion in developing the B2 stealth bomber before revealing it.

Millions were spent upgrading Groom Lake ten years ago and all the surrounding high ground which overlooks the base has been fenced off to keep out curious onlookers but apart from a couple of stealth prototypes there is no sign of what the USAF has been working on there since.

'Black' projects

The MoD report which was produced in 2000 and originally classified "Secret - UK eyes only" deals with UFOs - or UAPs (Unidentified Aerial Phenomena) in MoD jargon - and concludes that there is no evidence for the existence of alien visitors.

But it includes a working paper on 'Black' projects which says "it is acknowledged that some UAP sightings can be attributed to covert aircraft programmes". The report lists three Western programmes.

The first is the SR71 Blackbird which it refers to by its little-used code name 'Senior Crown'. A 14-line description of Programme 2 and a ten-line description of Programme 3 are both withheld.

Even the names of the programmes have been redacted on the grounds of 'international relations'. There are pictures of stealth fighters and bombers, the Blackbird and the new American F22 fighter but two photographs have been withheld. Could one of these be a picture of Aurora?

[It] could be speculation but then why would they [the MoD] need to withhold it?
Bill Sweetman, Jane's Defence Review

Bill Sweetman of Jane's Defence Review has been analysing America's undercover defence projects for fifteen years. We showed him the report and he concludes the MoD "identified two separate US 'Black' programmes that might have operated from the UK. It could be something they have reason to know about".

Imagination

The blanked out sections might well contain a reference to Aurora but that does not mean the plane definitely exists. Sweetman says the blanked out sections "could be speculation but then why would they need to withhold it?"

Elsewhere in the document in a section on exotic technologies is another intriguing line. The DIS say "The projected (USAF) priority plan is to produce unpiloted air-breathing aircraft with a Mach 8-12 capability and transatmospheric vehicles." but it then continues "as well as highly supersonic vehicles at Mach 4 to 6".

The MoD report will be seen by Aurora chasers as another clue to put with unexplained sightings and mystery sonic booms but the Pentagon still insists that Aurora is a figment of their imaginations.

----------
Click here to read and join the debate about this article on the Digg website . [The BBC is not responsible for the content of external websites.]

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/p ... 079044.stm

Published: 2006/06/14 11:18:28 GMT

© BBC MMVI
 
I was suprised the BBC covered this. Nice though :)
 
wowsah156 said:
Is it not time to stop thinking of the flying triangles has ufos. And just see them has future production models?

no - because they haven't yet been identified. until triangles, which i personally believe probably are test flights, are publicly acknowledged as such, they must remain as ufos as to put them down to test flights is itself as much a form as speculation as saying they could be spaceships/time machines/etc.
 
Back
Top