Up coming Rich Dolan episode - questions for Gene & Dave

[Mexicola]

What would the point be of having a mile long aircraft if you were going to keep it a secret? It would be a pain in the ass having to hide it all the time, keeping it unseen in our HEAVILY travelled airspace...

 

[icculus]

One mile is 5280 feet, and the World Trade Center towers were around 1300 feet long. An aircraft a mile long would be about 4 of those towers laid end-to-end. Sorry, even in the deepest, darkest secret cavern the US military operates, I have a hard time believing that there's a mile-long covert craft of any sort.

Yep, that's pretty big. I'm thinking about a triangle that's a few hundred feet or less. In fact, I was surprised by something Jeff Ritzmann said in one of his recent Paratopia shows ( episode 3 I think ). He saw a black and white video of a triangle levitating out of a hanger, then going vertical and pulling off a few manuevers. I wonder if there is a chance of finding this guy and checking out the video?

 

[DeeJay]

To my mind, the issues of implementing an AG engine are quite different from the manufacturing tech you'd need to construct a craft a mile long. Two different problems, and yeah, I don't think we have AG technology at that level of development. Just my opinion..

I don't think the manufacturing process of building a mile long aircraft is that much different from building an aircraft carrier. You manufacture smaller modules, and then assemble them as one self carrying hull.

As a tought experiment, remember the O'Hare craft shooting out without acceleration? You can do that only, if you are shielded from the laws of physics somehow, as already discussed by you that time. If you have that, I can also imagine the shear forces the hull has to withstand are maybe even smaller, than those an aircraft carrier has to cope with in the middle of a storm.

But I'm no mechanical engineer.

 

[DeeJay]

What would the point be of having a mile long aircraft if you were going to keep it a secret? It would be a pain in the ass having to hide it all the time, keeping it unseen in our HEAVILY travelled airspace...

You don't have to. After all, they were seen a couple of times before. As nobody believes you have the tech, you can hide it in plain sight. If somebody sees them, you just send Fife with an E.T. doll on the stage, and the case is closed.

 

[dorkbot]

In fact, I was surprised by something Jeff Ritzmann said in one of his recent Paratopia shows ( episode 3 I think ). He saw a black and white video of a triangle levitating out of a hanger...

I just recently listened to the Paratopia shows and somehow missed this story. I went back and scanned them but couldn't find this reference. Who was the guest on that episode?

I agree with David in attributing anything flying that is actually a mile wide to a paranormal source. To me the strongest argument against something like this being a black project, aside from any questions as to the technical feasibility of pulling it off, is that I have tremendous difficulty imagining any scenario where such enormous dimensions would be an advantage rather than a giant liability. Forget SAMs; you could shoot at something a mile wide with field artillery. Any possible scenario you could imagine, including massive heavy lift capabilities would be better served by multiple smaller craft.

It seems more rational to me to stick high quality reports of mile-wide triangles/deltas in one basket and high quality reports of football field-sized craft in another rather than combining all reports of triangles and making sweeping generalizations based on the outliers. As David points out, the Hindenburg was 800 feet long and that was built 78 years ago so when people see something matte black 300 ft wide running a few hundred feet over their heads at night an E.T. conclusion seems premature. That is to say that in my view, if the accounts of the 8'oclock 1997 Phoenix sightings are accurate then that seems to be a completely different order of thing than what was going on in Belgium in 1989.

 

[mike]

up close a 747 can look very large, i once worked near sydneys airport and under a flight path, they came in so low you could hear the undercarriage lowering was the joke , and they look huge.

so when you compare a 747 to the hindie.....


http://www.ciderpresspottery.com/ZLA/greatzeps/german/Hind_size.jpg


it must have looked huge, now imagine for stability sake you joined 3 hindenburgs nose to tail to form a triangle, and gave it a proper aircraft skin instead of painted canvas, it wouldnt be a mile wide thats for sure, but it would be so big that i imagine it might get described as such now and then

 

[mike]

and keep in mind we are looking very closely at mass these days

What is mass?

What is the origin of mass? Why do tiny particles weigh the amount they do? Why do some particles have no mass at all? At present, there are no established answers to these questions. The most likely explanation may be found in the Higgs boson, a key undiscovered particle that is essential for the Standard Model to work. First hypothesised in 1964, it has yet to be observed

http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/LHC/WhyLHC-en.html

http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/Science/Higgs-en.html

if we can figure out a way to turn mass "off".........

 

[jritzmann]

In fact, I was surprised by something Jeff Ritzmann said in one of his recent Paratopia shows ( episode 3 I think ). He saw a black and white video of a triangle levitating out of a hanger, then going vertical and pulling off a few manuevers. I wonder if there is a chance of finding this guy and checking out the video?

I wouldn't even know where to start. He was a man most likely in his 70's then, and that was a couple years before my 15 year old was born. I persisted for a copy more then a few times and was always refused.

I think it's very likely that these triangles are black projects of some kind. There's a lot of suppositions made about them being a mile wide. First, they are most often seen at night when judging distance and size is highly difficult. So, I don't really buy that mile wide thing. Then there's the assumption that they are solid metal craft, like an airplane. They could be negative cell foam or completely inflatable-with minimal internal structure support. They may be large indeed, but if they are dirigible based, it's an easy concealment compared to a solid craft.

My wife saw a triangle craft outside our old home near Edgewood Arsenal. She remarked that it was indeed big, and had small spark-like lights tracing down it's length in a random jittery way. This was explained to us some years before, as "Starlight" camoflage by the same man who showed us the video. She has no doubt this is what he was talking about at the time. Essentially, from a choosen vantage point, this craft would minic stars seen by camera above it. The effect was described as seamless, and you'd never see it.

Whether any of that was true is anyone's guess. Lisa said she saw it, and I believe she did.

As far as sound, lets be real. It doesnt take much to propel lighter then air craft if thats what it is. Given distance and technology, I'm sure silent or near silent isn't out of the realm.

The bottom line is none of us can say "we don't have this". Because we don't know what "we" have. "We" of course meaning R&D black projects on top of black, etc. Our fat tax dollars go to buying and developing some phat weapons and technology.

Think of it this way: how many years was the Stealth fighter and bombers flying before anyone really knew. Now, up that with advancements in aeronautics and technology and apply to today. What are we going to see in 20 years that is flying right now that the public and world just don't need to know about this second.

I find other shapes far more compelling to attribute to something exotic: spheres (lit and solid), cubes, cigars, and even in some cases, discs. Triangles seem very human-like in design for aircraft. Could they be the enigma? It's a maybe at best. But that's just my perspective.

 

[AnnetteMarie]

I agree with David in attributing anything flying that is actually a mile wide to a paranormal source. To me the strongest argument against something like this being a black project, aside from any questions as to the technical feasibility of pulling it off, is that I have tremendous difficulty imagining any scenario where such enormous dimensions would be an advantage rather than a giant liability.

offhand, I can think of one type of craft that would benefit from a huge surface area, that being a craft that utilizes air currents for silent movement, that sort of thing. Rather like a glider, on steroids. :

There are wings that are capable of being collapsed, and extended upon command, in use today, if I am not mistaken. Not a great leap of logic to imagine a sail or glider wing engineered to do the same.

 

[Gen]

I agree with David in attributing anything flying that is actually a mile wide to a paranormal source. To me the strongest argument against something like this being a black project, aside from any questions as to the technical feasibility of pulling it off, is that I have tremendous difficulty imagining any scenario where such enormous dimensions would be an advantage rather than a giant liability.

The only advantage I can think of would be psychological. I have heard of armies projecting religious imagery (such as the Virgin Mary) onto fog as part of psy-ops. (I think this was during World War I, though I forget where I read about it.) Having a big, silent, well-camouflaged screen in the sky to project stuff onto would be much better than fog.

A few years ago, I saw a Stealth bomber in flight as part of a Fourth of July celebration. I'll never forget how strange and sinister it seemed, even though I knew perfectly well what it was.

 

[DeeJay]

I agree with David in attributing anything flying that is actually a mile wide to a paranormal source. To me the strongest argument against something like this being a black project, aside from any questions as to the technical feasibility of pulling it off, is that I have tremendous difficulty imagining any scenario where such enormous dimensions would be an advantage rather than a giant liability. Forget SAMs; you could shoot at something a mile wide with field artillery. Any possible scenario you could imagine, including massive heavy lift capabilities would be better served by multiple smaller craft.

I don't think that is true. Power generation is more efficient when you go up in sizes, because there are certain losses which become more dominant, if the generated amount of power goes down. It also depends on what is your energy source, for example a nuclear reactor has a certain weight and needs some infrastructure, so that is why you don't see pocket sized nuke subs floating around in fishing ponds. I would also assume that conservation of energy still applies, so you have to put the same amount of power into your gravitational shield you would need to get the weight of your craft up for example with rockets. So if you take your energy source, your engine, support infrastructure, shielding against radiation, micro meteorites, gravity, etc. into account you will get an interwall, there will be a size under which it is not yet efficient, and there will be a size above which it is not efficient any more.

Also you make the assumption that the default operating enviroment for those craft is the atmoshere, which I think is also not true. Outside the atmosphere it is totally indifferent how big your craft is, on the contrary, you need bigger for the food and drinking water reserves.

 

[The Hawk]

I'd be willing to believe military contractors may have built a mile wide carrier blimp designed to transport a small military force and that they would fly it over a city to gouge a reaction. The craft was not seen by any significant number of people going at speeds a blimp would have trouble reaching.

Although by the large majority of accounts it was partially see through. The costs to make a ship that large with optical camo would be totally ridiculous.
IF it was a blimp, if it was human made then our country is truly more sick than even I ever imagined. Sick in wasteful spending and secrecy..

But IMO the craft is not totally unthinkable as David seems to imply..
Now if we somehow knew for a fact it was made out of metal then I'd agree with David that there is no way in hell it's human made.

 

[Gareth]

...our country is truly more sick than even I ever imagined. Sick in wasteful spending and secrecy..

Whatever it was, that statement is true regardless.

 

[Mexicola]

I still haven't heard a plausible reason to build a mile long aircraft that utilizes current technologies. If this is some kind of black project to create a new generation of dirigibles (which I think I read somewhere that Lockheed did have a contract to produce such aircraft), why would they want something so huge? Troop transport is a tantalizing explanation but I doubt it would be fast enough to be a viable option. If it is ours (well yours, I can safely say the Canadian Government couldn't afford to furnish the thing let alone build it!) and it is meant for psy-ops I wonder if it might be meant to send a message not to humans but perhaps other inhabitants in the sky?

 

[DeeJay]

I now return you to the high level genius-quality discussion of nuclear powered, partially transparent, mile long blimps full of soldiers already in progress.

How nice from you, thanks, but next time you shouldn't interrupt us with a non-genious post like this in the first place. And look up the expression "thought experiment" in Wikipedia.

 

[dorkbot]

I now return you to the high level genius-quality discussion of nuclear powered, partially transparent, mile long blimps full of soldiers already in progress.

While I am also dismissive of 5,280 foot blimps I would say this kind of statement is the other side of sweeping generalizations based on outliers in the discussion.

There has been a demonstrated and longstanding interest in large airships. DARPA's recently canceled WALRUS[pdf] program seriously called for a 500 ton lift capacity with the capability of transporting 1800 troops 6000 miles without refueling.

The number of high quality sightings reports of very large, black triangles operating quietly at near treetop level, the vast majority of which seem to fall into the <300ft range, combined with what we know about research and development of things such as compact airborne nuclear powerplants, EM absorption and scattering, active optical camouflage and noise suppression, active radar spoofing countermeasures and even more exotic things like MHD and MPD propulsion have sparked some very interesting speculation that has extended from beyond the ufo crowd to even mainstream aviation buffs.

The United States started funding R&D of airborne nuclear powerplants in the mid-1940s with the NEPA program and public research continued for another 15 years. Given the public attitude towards nuclear power and considering the tremendous advantages a successful nuclear aircraft would have it doesn't seem ridiculous to wonder if there is continuing work on the matter in black programs.

There is no proof here but I'm with DeeJay; it's a terrific thought experiment.