The Real Drones

[TClaeys]

The real drones.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5i_7otabxw8XLB8yCGhhlMhX7Vs7QD8TTEH400

I know they must have been testing these and other prototypes for some time now. As if we needed more to add to the "what can UFO's be" discussion. But I'm guessing these may have been culprits of suspected UFO's at some time or another. In fact they were unidentified and probably denied by any miltary branch at the time.

Anyone think these could account for some sightings? The things I've read dating back some years is that they can actually morph their wings to fly differently in different situations. And I've seen a number of sizes and shapes. I read somewhere that perhaps Kucinich's sighting may have been prototypes for such devices.

Certainly it doesn't explain everything, but maybe just a piece to add to the enigmatic jigsaw puzzle. Pretty cool and unusual looking as well.

 

[fitzbew88]

Anyone think these could account for some sightings?

I think they could.

I read somewhere that perhaps Kucinich's sighting may have been prototypes for such devices.

Really. My "read" on his report (the second-hand version in the WSJ) is that whatever he saw wanted to be seen, whereas most of the surveillance-type aircraft try to go unnoticed.

Do any of the known drones have exterior lights? I don't recall ever seeing any.

Do the U2 or SR-71 have any exterior lights?

The report did mention that the craft had red and green lights, which are the standard port/starboard configuration for aircraft.

 

[TClaeys]

Do any of the known drones have exterior lights? I don't recall ever seeing any.

Do the U2 or SR-71 have any exterior lights?

These are good questions and I wonder about the lights as well. Would an unmanned craft need lights? I'm not sure how it is controlled. By camera or GPS or some other means? I suppose the control mechanism would dictate whether or not it would need lights.

Also here is where I read about the Kucinich report possibly being drones. I have to say it seems like a long shot, but guess we should keep everything in mind right?

http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/2008/01/kucinich-sighting.html

 

[fitzbew88]

Also here is where I read about the Kucinich report possibly being drones. I have to say it seems like a long shot, but guess we should keep everything in mind right?

By all means, yes.

http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/2008/01/kucinich-sighting.html

Good article.

My guess is that research will show covert craft like this won't have any significant exterior lights. They don't want to be seen at night. Aircraft lighting is designed to keep other planes from running into you. Of course, there are "landing lights" that are supposed to illuminate the ground while you're landing but those are not colored, just plain bright white lights.

BUT -- if your theory is true, the "drones" would have been prototypes and may have special temporary lighting so they could be easily tracked from the ground.

It's a good theory. Even if what Kucinich saw were not drones, they could have been some other test vehicle. Like you said earlier, "we should keep everything in mind...".

 

[schticknz]

In another thread somewhere I asked the question (and i paraphrase myself ) ... why do ufos, black triangles and the such like sometimes have lights underneath them?? Why would someone with such high technology need to (a) lights to see in the dark, or (b) need lights to tell anyone else that they were there so that other aircraft don't collide with them.

I think an answer was that some of these 'lights' are part of the propulsion system and are not landing lights or aircraft lights of any kind. I, of course, remain unconvinced of that solution

I just don't see how a UFO which (possibly) relies on negating the effects of gravity would have such 'structures' involved with its propulsion system.