Encounters: The UFO Phenomenon, Exposed!/Encounters - The UFO Phenomenon, Exposed (1995).iso/misc1/misc028.txt

Internet Message Format | 1995-10-20 | 6KB

From: [e-mail] (Rod Beckwith)
Newsgroups: alt.paranet.ufo
Subject: Classified Aircraft and UFOs
Date: 19 Oct 93 14:00:01 GMT
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.


Hello all,

Here is an ongoing discussion from the Skunk Works mailing
list.....interesting stuff.


From: [e-mail]
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 1993 14:31:13 -0700
Subject: Classified Aircraft and UFOs

Dean Adams responds:
>Another interesting UAV/recon item in AWST recently was a story about
>some 100ft/200ft electric motor powered "flying wing" UAVs.  The article
>has a photo of one slated for testing out at Dryden shortly, but they
>also mention there had been some classified flight tests done with these
>vehicles in the early 80s.  This might possibly have been responsible
>for some of  the "giant, silent, flying wing UFO" reports from a while back...

It's easy to say that word 'some' Dean, but I think we need to clarify
when such a thing MIGHT be true. This type of thing is not being done,
probably because the UFO ridicule factor says we sweep these things
under the rug.  But, if you're attempting to track classified
aircraft, you need to be able to discern and categorize such things
more precisely. That's why I really believe that such an endeavor
requires one to be knowledgeable about both! So let me attempt a
start.

General Michael Dugan, in the often quoted (by me lately) April 24,
1989 Defense News article, mentioned that the mission requirement of
long endurance surveillance aircraft was 'A platform that can hover
for extended periods at high altitudes.'

Since we're talking about high altitude, and stealth, and about a
program that is still classified, I don't see the tie-in in all cases.
I realize you said 'some' cases. But in an attempt to clarify:

In my opinion, the security restrictions on classified aircraft alone,
preclude the most spectacular sightings of these large UFOs being
classified military vehicles. Many of these spectacular sightings
occurred over many nights, and at VERY close range.

I suppose you could be right that 'some' of these long endurance
aircraft could have been sighted during testing, and mistaken for
UFOs, but I would suggest that such sightings should place the subject
aircraft in a situation consistent with program mission requirements
and security rules.

If the most spectacular of these UFO sightings was indeed a classified
long duration vehicle, would such a ruse, if intentional, work during
a conflict?

Christopher Paul Diehl wrote:
>>The reason this caught my attention was because of the possibility that
>>this explains why all the services, the NRO etc. were saying that they
>>had no such program for an SR-71 follow-on.

Well as the Aurora Bib. says, there WAS such a program! And, some high
ranking officers indicated that was so! It's important to remember
that because it says that the system IS needed!

Going over some of the references again:

The source for the early 1988 NY Times article indicated that this
type of capability (Mach 5 reconnaissance aircraft) had been on the
drawing board for some time.

Gen. Randolph (4/24/89), Referring specifically to a SR-71
replacement, insisted that all efforts are currently relegated to very
early stages of discussion.

General Welch (8/18/90): "The SR-71 is no longer appropriate for the
SR-71 mission".

In the 1/13/93 Aerospace Daily, the USAF debunked the reported AURORA
by saying: The aircraft, originally envisioned as succeeding the SR-71
in the 1990 timeframe, was being developed at least in part by
Lockheed's Advanced Development Co. or "Skunk Works" unit in Burbank,
Calif., but was canceled about 1986, sources said.

Sorry to nit-pick, but there is so little that has actually been
admitted about an SR-71 successor, that we should't forget it.

Larry

------------------------------

From: [e-mail] (Dean Adams)
Date: Mon, 18 Oct 93 23:57:33 MDT
Subject: Re:  Classified Aircraft and UFOs

Larry says...
>It's easy to say that word 'some' Dean, but I think we need to clarify
>when such a thing MIGHT be true. This type of thing is not being done,
>probably because the UFO ridicule factor says we sweep these things
>under the rug.

OK, just a short bit of my own "clarification" :), a particular "some"
I had in mind when writing that previous note is a sighting mentioned
in (I think) the Popular Mechanics cover story, about a "large, silent,
flying wing" seen around the Edwards area...

...
 >General Welch (8/18/90): "The SR-71 is no longer appropriate
 > for the SR-71 mission".

And if that was a true statement, then there would likely be
a "better" follow-on vehicle operating performing the mission!

 >In the 1/13/93 Aerospace Daily, the USAF debunked the reported AURORA by
 >saying: The aircraft, originally envisioned as succeeding the SR-71 in
 >the 1990 timeframe,

Which "coincidentally" is precisely when the SR-71 was retired...

 >was being developed at least in part by Lockheed's Advanced
 >Development Co. or "Skunk Works" unit in Burbank, Calif., but
 >was canceled about 1986, sources said.

Hmmm... just like the A-11 was "canceled", and became the A-12? :)
Or perhaps something was canceled in BURBANK, and moved out to
Palmdale and Groom Lake?

 >Sorry to nit-pick, but there is so little that has actually been
 >admitted about an SR-71 successor, that we should't forget it.

Even just the retiring of the SR-71s alone says a lot about the
existance of a "successor".  And I certainly agree 100% that these
high-altitude, lightweight, "loitering" UAVs are definitley not
successors to the SR-71.. at least not in any meaningful sense of
the word.

- -dean


Rod

--
Rod Beckwith     |$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$| The
Datacom I/S      |"The great obstacle of progress is not ignorance,| Nite
[e-mail]|but the illusion of knowledge."                  | Net
             |$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$| Knight