Evan Burton

As Ron pointed out, one of the big reasons for UFOs being considered improbable is the distances to travel and the speeds involved. Without a Faster-Than-Light (FTL) drive system, it's all just too big. Scientists generally don't see any way around this problem as yet.

Some people, however, might be scratching at the surface of a system that makes 'conventional' FTL travel possible.

Now, I'm not strong on this suit so excuse any inaccuracies.

The problem with FTL now is that the closer we get to c (the speed of light), the mass of the object being accelerated becomes larger. As you approach c, the mass becomes "infinite". You'd need incredible propulsion to continue to accelerate and the attraction of the mass would probably kill everything aboard the spacecraft - including the spacecraft.

It would seem, though, that some scientists think they may be on the way to be able to reduce your mass to zero whilst still keeping all your regular dimensions. With zero mass, you could accelerate up to c and avoid all the nasty side effects. Although it is still very early days, this notion is not considered entirely impractical!

Real Spooks

Reporter: BBC Panorama

Broadcast: 09/07/2007

Across Britain counter terrorism forces are gathering evidence against the planners of the failed car bomb plots in London and Glasgow. The forensic information gleaned from the vehicles and the arrests in Britain and Australia should allow them to piece together how the conspiracy was formed.

But catching suspected terrorists after the act is one thing; real success is preventing an attack in the first place. This report from the BBC’s Panorama asks whether Britain’s security services missed an opportunity to identify the July 7 suicide bombers as a threat over a year before they killed 52 people.

The programme describes the activities of a massive surveillance effort codenamed Operation Crevice. The "real spooks" tracked the movements and communications of an Al Qaeda linked terror cell, which planned to explode a powerful fertiliser bomb. Fearful of an imminent attack, the authorities made a series of arrests. In April this year five men were sentenced to life in prison for their part in the plot.

Panorama reveals that during the surveillance for Operation Crevice, MI5 monitored two men who went on to take part in the July 7 London suicide bomb attack. Their connection to the Crevice cell was noted but no one realised the risk they posed. The programme charts the contact between the conspirators and asks: was an opportunity lost?

"Real Spooks" - on Four Corners 8.30 pm Monday 9 July, ABC TV.

This program will be repeated about 11.35 pm Tuesday 10 July; also on ABC2 digital channel at 10 pm Wednesday and 8 am Thursday.

I use Firefox with adblocker.

I see nothingk!

Sid,

I just don't see any major "...discrepancies, anomalies, willful destruction of evidence,..." etc.

As I have said before, if Mineta was mistaken about the time then it all fits. Unless I see credible evidence to the contrary, I'll go with the records.

Sometimes I think that some people don't really think through the value of 'black' programmes.

There are some aspects which can (should?) be kept secret, and continue to provide value. The SR-71 was secret for many years yet gave the US valuable intelligence. Perhaps there is the Aurora, which is today providing surveillance data to the US - who knows?

On the other hand, designs which are meant for combat have little value if they are kept secret. They have to be employed. If they are employed, you risk far greater risk of disclosure. Therefore the value of keeping the system 'secret' is outweighed by the benefits of employing the system.

I can accept a military surveillance system being kept secret for many years; I find it much harder to believe in a combat system not being revealed for a variety of reasons.

Excuse me for intruding as such, but I really don't see why such a fuss is being made over some threads being locked.

The posts are still there, and you can download them at will.

If you feel you have to respond to a poster, you can PM them with a reply.

If you feel a thread is of such importance that it should be unlocked, you can ask the mods, John S, or Andy W.

Just my opinion.

Shanksville is about 130 miles from D.C. thus flight 93 was ‘tracked’ about 70 miles (about 8 minutes at 530 mph) after it crashed. The 9/11 C. suggested that this might have been based on its projected course. Since the transponder was turned off they would have had to track it with primary radar which doesn’t identify any of the blips. There are some regions where primary coverage is spotty if it exists at all. Since it would depend on a line of sight from the low lying DC area tracking in a hill region like that might not have been easy. I also imagine they might have confused 93 with another plane there must have been thousands still up in the air, a few were in visual range of the Boeing when it crashed.

Evan – Since you are presumably the only person here qualified to do so I hope you can add your ‘2 cents’ about the above.

The radar coverage is very much dependent on the system in use, the terrain, the height of the target, the range of the target, and where the radar mast is located. I'm not familiar with systems in use, so I can only give a generalisation.

In my day, it was called SSR - Secondary Surveillance Radar and as the name suggests, it was an aid to control and NOT to be used as a primary reference. We always relied on primary radar returns.

There can be interruptions to primary (raw) / secondary (SSR) returns, and you don't want the system to dump its tracking data because it lost contact for a couple of sweeps. It therefore continues to plot the track based on last known data, known as Dead Reckoning. It might do this based on the last 5 seconds data, the last 10 sweeps, the last 30 seconds data, the last 60 seconds data, whatever. Some systems might use SSR data as the primary reference, and revert to raw radar within specified parameters if SSR is lost. In other words, if it loses SSR data but there is a primary return very close and in the expected position of the track, it assumes that the primary return is that track and assigns itself to that return. This works well normally, but if there are returns close by it can accidentally 'jump' onto the wrong target. How it assigns itself can also cause errors. For instance, we used the SV1022 radar in our Coastwatch aircraft and that system employed what was called a Kalman video filter for tracking. It looked at the brightness values displayed on the screen. In short range scales where there was a lot of sea return, the tracker might accidentally jump onto a sea return because it had a larger value brightness and try to follow that.

In any case, if the track went into DR mode, it would be displayed to the operator in some form - a change in symbology, change of colour, the displayed symbol flashing, whatever. How long it continues in DR mode is another matter; some systems will drop the track if no updates are received after 60 seconds, others will continue on merrily until told otherwise. It all depends on the system programming.

I'm assuming that the ATC system in use continues in DR mode until the track is dropped, and considering the chaos that was occurring at the time, it was quite possible that the controller didn't notice this was a DR track.

Overall, I still think that Mineta (how do you pronounce that? Mine-Ta? Min-Et-A? My-Neeta?) simply confused times & durations. I would imagine we have all experience what I call 'time dilation', where a couple of minutes can seem like 20 minutes, or an hour can seem like 5 minutes. I think the explanation I posted earlier seems to be a best fit. Until I see some more conclusive evidence to the contrary, I'll place my faith in logs and recorded times.

I remember the 'flying sub' from the TV series "Voyage to the bottom of the sea" - it was so cool. Reminded me of a manta ray, which I think inspired the Irwin Allen design.

Haven't heard of any real-world projects, though. Missile & subs, aircraft & subs - yes, but a flying sub? Nope.

A small reference here:

American researchers would eventually come back to study the Go 229 flying wing in later years, leading up to the development of the B-2 Spirit stealth bomber which, in essence, became the Go 229 dream realized decades before.

http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft/de...aircraft_id=105

and a fantastic site about the Ho229 and other designs:

http://greyfalcon.us/The%20Horten%20Ho%20229.htm

Don't forget that the Brits were experimenting with tailless designs, notably the DH.108 Swallow which IIRC Geoffery deHavilland lost his life in.

ETA:

Yep - he was killed in it. Details here:

http://www.century-of-flight.freeola.com/A...ngs/britain.htm

But I am right, aren't I, in thinking that Jack Northrup's experience in flying wings was inspired by the Horton brothers aren't I -- or is that another myth that has circulated?

I'm pretty sure he was inspired by a Horton glider, so I'd say it is not a myth.

Also, didn't Northrop look at the Horton design when setting out to design the B2? I seem to remember reading that somewhere (or was it a TV doco -- can't really remember now). I also was under the impression that the B2 design was based to some unfathomable extent on the Horton flying wing concept because of the stealth qualities this construction offered. I also understand that stealth technology was being worked on by the Nazis and fell into US hands via Operation Paperclip. What I don't know is if there was a concomitant allied research project into stealth (I suspect there must have been though)?

I don't know how much they looked at their designs for the B-2, but they certainly looked at them for the YB-49. I'll see what I can find out.

I wonder whether it was said at all.

And, these people have yet to be proven guilty of anything.

David,

Not really. Northrop was also working on the same style designs. Jack Northrop was fascinated with them, and they promised greatly reduced drag and therefore increased range / efficiency.

The first was the N-9M, a scaled prototype for the XB-35 Flying Wing bomber. The N-9M first flew in 1942. The first XB-35 flight was in 1946. Both were powered by propellers. The programme had some success, and led to the YB-49 - a jet powered version of the B-35. The YB-49 first flew in 1948.

The big problem with them was stability and poor low-speed characteristics (important for takeoff and landing!).

The design, however, still held promise. When high speed digital systems began to transfer to aircraft, the ability to overcome the stability problems came about. It's like the X-29 with it's forward swept wing. The X-29 is actually aerodynamically unstable, so is practically impossible to fly without computer assistance. The instability, however, allows rapid and drastic changes in the flight path - exactly what you want in a nimble fighter.

The flying wing concept could overcome it's own stability problems (though it was not aerodynamically unstable) through the use of computers. Another reason for developing the concept was the low Radar Cross section (RCS) of the designs. Not really thought of when they were first developed in the 40s, but vitally important for a modern combat aircraft.

Some piccies:

Northrop N-9M

XB-35

YB-49

Edited to add:

Here is a good site with the history of the Northrop flying wing designs, and some good off-site reference material links:

http://www.yourzagi.com/history.htm

Yeah, I think it simply some sensationalism at its worst.

Shanet,

It's similar for me. Might be hard to understand but I do believe in UFOs (and not just the strict definition - unidentified). I think there is almost certain that there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe, and I think there is a good chance that at least one of those has developed FTL travel in some form. I'm pretty sure that there have been at least a few real sightings of these ET craft - but I will freely admit that I have never seen conclusive evidence of either their existence or visitation by them.

I look forward to the day when there will be undeniable proof - but I haven't seen any as yet.

Everything I have seen so far has more mundane explanations or are cases of simple misidentification. I remember a photograph being touted as "Pelidian Beam Ship" or something; being the aircraft buff, I immediately recognised it as a blurred photograph of an X-29 (which was still very new at the time). That's why I said "good grief" about the linkage between the German advanced designs and so-called secret tests in the 50s / 60s. To me, the design history is very clear and no alien involvement is necessary.

Peter, I'll edit your posts to make them fit into a standard window, easier for reading. No words will be removed or added.

Evan

Craig, the official report does say they hustled him out of the office pretty quick. My guess would be in less than one minute.

WHEN? "shortly after 9am"? 9:30? One thing we do know is than none of the sources Ron quotes tells us WHEN?

Nope - it just says that when they collected him, they got him out of there pretty fast. The USSG logs say that was 0936 (IIRC).

Craig, the official report does say they hustled him out of the office pretty quick. My guess would be in less than one minute.

Ron, we have disagreements between two timelines. One is taken from various logs and recording devices, the other is based on... what?

Has anyone asked Mr Mineta how he determined those times? Ditto for the photographer. Now, if Mr Mineta states that he looked at his watch for the 0920 times, then yes, I would say there is something worth digging into.

Based on the balance of probabilities, however, I consider it more likely that he made an estimate of the time and got it wrong.

Something that could clear this up is to find out what time the White House called him and asked him to come over (I presume this call would have been logged). Ditto for finding out what time the calls to Monty Belger & Jane Garvey were made. If they back up Mineta's timings, THEN you have some real evidence.

Similarly, he said he "discussed the situation with the North American Air defense commander"; that call would have also been logged somewhere.

We do have one interesting piece of timing which would support his claims - the grounding aircraft time. Mr Mineta said he gave that order at 0945, which would appear to be backed up. That meant he was there at 0945, and SLOTUS isn't recorded as arriving until 0952. He said that she was there. So the question should be asked: WHEN did you discover she was there? On arrival? On hearing the "miles... orders still stand.." call? After he had given the order to ground all aircraft?

With in depth questioning, it might turn out that he found things out later but using terms like "she was there" means he was misinterpreted. On the other hand, it might provide further evidence that his timeline is correct.

Interested parties should seek to ask these questions to confirm timings.

Here's the point. A real investigation would have cleared this whole question up, like a thousand other questions about 9/11. Mineta would have been grilled till he got his story straight or else it was determined that his story is true and some people, logs etc. were lying. Instead the 9/11 Whitewash Commission just scratched its head over Mineta's testimony and tried to ignore it.

But you simply assume he is right, and everything else is a lie! You do not allow for the possibility he is mistaken and everything else is correct.

The investigation appears to have investigated and determined that it was Mineta that was mistaken, because all the other evidence matched up.

Michael, Ron would appear to be what I term a 'truther'.

As Charlie Brown would say: "Good grief!"

Even one of the posts or articles (I can't remember which) says that the times ranged from 0900 to 0930 - so some of those reports must be wrong. Why must it be assumed that the USSS logs must be wrong? They agree with the ATC logs of when the USSS Ops Center was notified of an inbound.

Has anyone asked Mr Mineta how he determined the time? He says in that interview that he could have been mistaken about the time. What about the White House photographer - did he look at his watch and note the time, or did he recollect the time later?

I have to point out again, if Mr Mineta was incorrect about his time of arrival, then all the events match up.

This is why we make logs - to record the time, and what happened.

If the WHite House photographer was doing his job...taking pictures of the events...there IS a log, the metadata embedded in the digital photographs. Why not ask him for the timestamps?

We'd have to be sure that the time was correctly set on the camera - which it probably was (+/- 5 mins) - but anyway: EXCELLENT point Craig.

How appropriate that all of you post your Twenty Five Ways to Suppress the Truth on a thread with that same title ... You are all so predictable .

But in spite of your predictability , none of you will be able to stop the truth from coming out about Apollo ... Thanks to researchers like Jack White and David Percy , the entire world will be able to see not only that nasa faked the Apollo photography , but HOW they faked it !

Am I shocked that you all resort to these dishonest tactics ? ... Of course not ! ... Dave , you sound just like a parrot that has spent WAY too much time on clavius ... Please , not "strawman fallacy " again !?!? ... Too funny !!

Seems that Jack has been trying for a few years, Percy longer than that, and many others before him - but strangely all the experts disagree with them. They point out the errors in their assumptions, their calculations, their analysis, their methods, their results.

I don't suppose it occurred to you - or them - that they might be... wrong?

And Duane - note that we AGREE with the mysterious astronomer. It's just that what Jack says is the size of the Sun in the image is wrong.

Even one of the posts or articles (I can't remember which) says that the times ranged from 0900 to 0930 - so some of those reports must be wrong. Why must it be assumed that the USSS logs must be wrong? They agree with the ATC logs of when the USSS Ops Center was notified of an inbound.

Has anyone asked Mr Mineta how he determined the time? He says in that interview that he could have been mistaken about the time. What about the White House photographer - did he look at his watch and note the time, or did he recollect the time later?

I have to point out again, if Mr Mineta was incorrect about his time of arrival, then all the events match up.

This is why we make logs - to record the time, and what happened.

Sid, I can only say that if there is information you consider very important, then save the webpage to your own PC.

When all my rebuttals to Jack's Aulis claims disappeared, I had to recreate the whole thing. I found some bit archived by Google, and some people had saved some webpages to their own PCs, but it took a lot of repeated effort.

This time, they are all saved on my PC.