It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
What are these so-called "drones" being trucked?
page: 12
share:
I know that I've ventured into a fairly conventional forum here where the term "UFO" is uniformily ignored and threaders and posters tend to want
to only discussed what is released by Aviantion Week the aerospace industries and the government, nonetheless.
My brother just called about another so-called "drone" being tracked across central Illinois this last Monday. (A news video is currently available from a local TV station there: WCIA.
As in the past, the craft looked like a couple of others seen in the last few years. All I intend here is to make a couple of observations and get some thoughtful if not knowledgeable responses.
Most striking is the shape. From what limited views I've seen, the center of the craft blends smoothly out toward the outer edges. Some of the images of these craft have shown the actual edge without a tarp covering. The body is basically round and shows no areas where wings or other control surfaces can be attached.
With a width of about 30 feet, there is no airfoil area possible nor any visible blunt areas where wings could be attached. How does the thing fly?
Wait! Does the thing, indeed, "fly" at all, via the use of air either as lift or propulsion?
A clue to something rather mysterious about the craft other than the "flying saucer" shape is the landing gear.
I cannot say that I've ever seen such a heavy-duty landing gear on such a small craft. Even carrier-based aircraft are not that heavily constructed. The landing gear size works directly against any potential lift we can imagine from the "lifting body."
We see no area of intake or exhaust for any type of jet engine. Nor do we see any area around the craft where a prop would be mounted.
What can we make of this conflicting evidence and lack of other evidence: A heavy craft with no notable airfoil? Having seen a similar craft, a huge triangle moving slow, low and silently, I must conclude that these drones are somewhat similar in manner in that while they may move through the air, they need it not at all for lift or propulsion. --But, shucks, that's getting into the UFO realm isn't it and most of you guys won't venture there.
My brother just called about another so-called "drone" being tracked across central Illinois this last Monday. (A news video is currently available from a local TV station there: WCIA.
As in the past, the craft looked like a couple of others seen in the last few years. All I intend here is to make a couple of observations and get some thoughtful if not knowledgeable responses.
Most striking is the shape. From what limited views I've seen, the center of the craft blends smoothly out toward the outer edges. Some of the images of these craft have shown the actual edge without a tarp covering. The body is basically round and shows no areas where wings or other control surfaces can be attached.
With a width of about 30 feet, there is no airfoil area possible nor any visible blunt areas where wings could be attached. How does the thing fly?
Wait! Does the thing, indeed, "fly" at all, via the use of air either as lift or propulsion?
A clue to something rather mysterious about the craft other than the "flying saucer" shape is the landing gear.
I cannot say that I've ever seen such a heavy-duty landing gear on such a small craft. Even carrier-based aircraft are not that heavily constructed. The landing gear size works directly against any potential lift we can imagine from the "lifting body."
We see no area of intake or exhaust for any type of jet engine. Nor do we see any area around the craft where a prop would be mounted.
What can we make of this conflicting evidence and lack of other evidence: A heavy craft with no notable airfoil? Having seen a similar craft, a huge triangle moving slow, low and silently, I must conclude that these drones are somewhat similar in manner in that while they may move through the air, they need it not at all for lift or propulsion. --But, shucks, that's getting into the UFO realm isn't it and most of you guys won't venture there.
It is very difficult to offer a meaningful reply from your description. As full as you have clearly tried to make it, there is no substitution for
other peoples comments being based upon seeing what you saw. Is there an image you can post, or a link to an image elsewhere?
Nevertheless, my initial thoughts are that it reads as though it is indeed a UCAV/UAV tarped up with the wings removed. I know you said you couldn't see how any wings might attach, but could that be from unfamiliarity, or the way it was wrapped up?
The USN's X-47B UCAV is pictured below, as you can see it does indeed have a very substantial undercarriage for a very small airframe, to withstand the stresses of carrier operations and, as it is also apparent on the image that, if the airframe was covered by a tarp, you would not be able to see the dorsal air intake. Could this be what you have seen?
[edi
tby]edit on 14-6-2012 by waynos because: added image
Nevertheless, my initial thoughts are that it reads as though it is indeed a UCAV/UAV tarped up with the wings removed. I know you said you couldn't see how any wings might attach, but could that be from unfamiliarity, or the way it was wrapped up?
The USN's X-47B UCAV is pictured below, as you can see it does indeed have a very substantial undercarriage for a very small airframe, to withstand the stresses of carrier operations and, as it is also apparent on the image that, if the airframe was covered by a tarp, you would not be able to see the dorsal air intake. Could this be what you have seen?
There is no mystery here. The two X-47B unmanned vehicles have been shipped across the country from one test site (Edwards AFB, California) to another
(NAS Patuxent River, Maryland). The wings had to be removed from the airframe so that it would fit on the nation's highways. This makes them look
even stranger than usual to people unfamiliar with these craft. since I saw them on a weekly, (and sometimes daily) basis at Edwards, they are nothing
special to me. Both times the craft were trucked across the country, Northrop Grumman officials tried to forestall the inevitable "flying saucer"
reports by leaving the landing gear down and locked so that bystanders could clearly see that it was an airplane. One would think that with all the
exposure stealthy drones are getting in the news and on the Internet, that more people would be familiar with them. Unfortunately, too many people are
more willing to believe a fantastic explanation than a mundane one, and the news media fans the flames.
Originally posted by Shadowhawk
There is no mystery here. The two X-47B unmanned vehicles have been shipped across the country from one test site (Edwards AFB, California) to another (NAS Patuxent River, Maryland). The wings had to be removed from the airframe so that it would fit on the nation's highways. This makes them look even stranger than usual to people unfamiliar with these craft. since I saw them on a weekly, (and sometimes daily) basis at Edwards, they are nothing special to me. Both times the craft were trucked across the country, Northrop Grumman officials tried to forestall the inevitable "flying saucer" reports by leaving the landing gear down and locked so that bystanders could clearly see that it was an airplane. One would think that with all the exposure stealthy drones are getting in the news and on the Internet, that more people would be familiar with them. Unfortunately, too many people are more willing to believe a fantastic explanation than a mundane one, and the news media fans the flames.
I can accept that these are indeed the drones now that I've seen better images. But I can also accept what many of you conventionalist seem loath to accept andd that is a"fantastic explanation" for some mysterious craft. As I reported in the OP I have witnessed (along with about 20 others) a huge triangle craft (bigger than a 747) moving low, slow and silently over Laramie in 1998. The development of these strange-looking drones simply blur the distinctions.
I also must accept that you think that Ben Rich and Kelly Johnson were both merely talking through their hats as they talked about our SR-71 and what we had over ten years ago far beyond that conventional technology.
reply to post by Aliensun
So, even though you accept and agree that mine and shadowhawks assessment was correct, you are still looking for an argument?
So, even though you accept and agree that mine and shadowhawks assessment was correct, you are still looking for an argument?
Originally posted by waynos
reply to post by Aliensun
So, even though you accept and agree that mine and shadowhawks assessment was correct, you are still looking for an argument?
I'm saying from long experience on this ABS with conventionalist aviation enthusiast that most of you would not dare admit that UFOs are real both as our own engineered ships and especially as actual ET ships. That is what I'm saying. And as I mentioned two of the most knowledgeable guys that knew what was happening with advance craft gave us some hints of that issue.
Ben Rich in his Skunk Works with Leo Janos mentioned more than once that as the SR-71-type ships were being flown on high speed runs across the US that NORAD was warned that they were friendlies and not to consider them as UFOs.
Some of you guys were probably among those that discuss endlessly about what was slowly leaked with the F-117A while it was still under wraps, yet, you could easily pull up momumental data from early Army Air Corp generals and on and on until the advent of the triangles in the mid-1960s to show that UFOs had a very subtstantial reason for being. It makes me wonder, have you no curiousity that gets out of bounds of what Uncle wants you to think or are there other reasons for ignoring one of the biggest mysteries of our time?
reply to post by Aliensun
So, you just want to generalise and be all piss and wind then? Only I thought I was entering a thread discussing something specific.
So, you just want to generalise and be all piss and wind then? Only I thought I was entering a thread discussing something specific.