Evan Burton

Jack,

Does this look like what you saw?

I'm guessing it almost certainly was. That is the ARH-70 (Armed Recon Helicopter). Often painted black or very dark colours, based on the Kiowa (Jetranger) airframe, built by Bell in the DFW area, designed to fulfill the role of the RAH-66 Comanche and so therefore has a reduced RCS and incorporates technology to help reduce its noise signature.

I don't necessarily know about the 300 feet altitude, though. Judging altitude when you only see an object for a few seconds is difficult, even for those in the aviation community. Most regulations say you have to be at 1000 feet over a built-up area, or 500 feet over other areas, so I think they were between 500 - 1000 feet. Of course, with 5 of them in a line astern formation, there might have been reasons for them to be low flying and thus doing so with ATC approval.

Craig,

I consider that last post to be a personal attack and have made it invisible. I'll alert other mods and see if they agree.

Please do NOT make such posts - address the issues raised, please. First and only warning.

Thank you.

You know, I don't think I have ever used a blender in my whole life... silent or otherwise.

Nope, I was right; it was discussed a couple of months ago.

As is to be expected, Jack simply recycles old claims that have already been proven wrong (or doubtful).

This one is really strange...aluminum vs steel...and aluminum wins.

Jack

I thought we had dealt with that nonsense already? perhaps it was on a different forum. I'll check...

At this time, with 8 votes cast, the results are:

37.5% - All lies (3 votes)

25% - Mostly lies (2 votes)

12.5% - Believe most of it, but have doubts (1 vote)

25% - Overall believe (2 votes)

With 8 people responding, most do not believe anything about the report.

Or are afraid that all actions and posts on the internet are no longer private.....

If that is the case, then I'd advise them to stay inside and never interact with the outside world, never go outside again.

It's an opinion - nothing more, nothing less. People should stand up and make theirs known. Besides, the vote so far is ANTI-government, not pro. People who do not agree with the report are speaking up, it would seem.

At this time, with 8 votes cast, the results are:

37.5% - All lies (3 votes)

25% - Mostly lies (2 votes)

12.5% - Believe most of it, but have doubts (1 vote)

25% - Overall believe (2 votes)

With 8 people responding, most do not believe anything about the report.

Quiet helicopters are definitely wanted; we get lots of noise complaints and we are a rotary-wing base. Getting back to the topic, though, there are two aspects: reducing the noise, and reducing the radar signature. The importance of each depends on the operational environment of the aircraft. Typically, helicopters will conduct "nape of the Earth" flying overland, meaning very low level. This also helps hide the aircraft by being mixed up with radar ground clutter. The noise though, can give it's position away and since helicopters do not typically have high speeds, warning of approach can be passed by ground troops.

I'd be interested to find out what type of helos Jack saw; they might be quite ordinary but they might also be of an advanced design, probably demonstration models.

I can also state that I have used cellphones (we call them mobiles here) in aircraft up to about 10,000 feet. The aircraft were AC500 Aero Commanders, BN2B Islanders, F406, and DHC8 Dash 8s. We would occasionally use our mobiles inflight. The phones of both analogue and GSM technology, from 1996 through to 2000.

This is from PERSONAL experience.

It seems there are times when a registration is not required to be displayed on an aircraft:

(a) When display of aircraft nationality and registration marks in accordance with §§45.21 and 45.23 through 45.33 would be inconsistent with exhibition of that aircraft, a U.S.-registered aircraft may be operated without displaying those marks anywhere on the aircraft if:

(1) It is operated for the purpose of exhibition, including a motion picture or television production, or an airshow;

(2) Except for practice and test fights necessary for exhibition purposes, it is operated only at the location of the exhibition, between the exhibition locations, and between those locations and the base of operations of the aircraft; and

(3) For each flight in the United States:

(i) It is operated with the prior approval of the Flight Standards District Office, in the case of a flight within the lateral boundaries of the surface areas of Class B, Class C, Class D, or Class E airspace designated for the takeoff airport, or within 4.4 nautical miles of that airport if it is within Class G airspace; or

(ii) It is operated under a flight plan filed under either §91.153 or §91.169 of this chapter describing the marks it displays, in the case of any other flight.

( A small U.S.-registered aircraft built at least 30 years ago or a U.S.-registered aircraft for which an experimental certificate has been issued under §21.191(d) or 21.191(g) for operation as an exhibition aircraft or as an amateur-built aircraft and which has the same external configuration as an aircraft built at least 30 years ago may be operated without displaying marks in accordance with §§45.21 and 45.23 through 45.33 if:

(1) It displays in accordance with §45.21© marks at least 2 inches high on each side of the fuselage or vertical tail surface consisting of the Roman capital letter “N” followed by:

(i) The U.S. registration number of the aircraft; or

(ii) The symbol appropriate to the airworthiness certificate of the aircraft (“C”, standard; “R”, restricted; “L”, limited; or “X”, experimental) followed by the U.S. registration number of the aircraft; and

(2) It displays no other mark that begins with the letter “N” anywhere on the aircraft, unless it is the same mark that is displayed under paragraph ((1) of this section.

14 CFR 45

So it was like this?

Sorry, but I'm trying to understand what you meant by "not open"; it made an impression on you so it's something we can use to help try and identify what make of aircraft it was.

1. Never look for the simplest, most obvious cause of something. Refrain from mentioning Occam's Razor (it's your nemesis).

2. Always favor the conspiracy angle over the boring angle. Mundane explanations (like saying that Roswell was a balloon) are for dullards and government drones. If you want to sleep with that curvaceous new-age chick, don't tell her you think astrology is bogus! (Non woo-woos may benefit from that advice temporarily).

3. Don't accept mainstream science unless it's something you've believed in for years (like gravity).

4. Try to answer as few direct questions as possible. Always obfuscate and try to sound learned. Mimic Richard Hoagland's style and you'll go far.

5. Use "what if" scenarios to change the subject whenever possible. If you linger on one topic too long you may be asked to provide annoying things like "proof." Don't let that happen! Consult a creationist if you need practice with subject-changing.

6. If you're cornered and asked for proof of something, always tell the person that they "can't disprove" your claims. Many of them will just walk away shaking their heads, which of course means they agree with you. A side-to-side head shake could be the same as a vertical nod. Anything is possible, after all.

7. Memorize all the sci-babble terms used in the Star Trek series. They are very useful if you get cornered by a skeptic, and you need to come up with some sort of "scientific" explanation. e.g., Inertial Dampeners. (Thanks to SkepticReport.com for the Star Trek terminology correction!)

8. When all else fails, start asking hypothetical questions that have nothing to do with the actual debate. If your opponent chooses to ignore your pointless questions and remains on topic, repeat your meaningless question(s) over and over. This will make any Believers in the audience think that your opponent is evading the issue.

9. Accuse your opponent of being a xxxx, or try some other tactic that will (hopefully) make him angry. If he responds in kind to your endless taunts, change the subject to his anger, and accuse him of name calling. If he accuses you of provoking him, then you have changed the subject of the debate. If he stays on topic, keep the heat up. The Believers in the audience will forgive the worst verbal attacks you use, but they will think even the mildest replies he makes to you are personal attacks that undermine his argument.

10. Use the word quantum in a sentence, despite not knowing what it means. For a more impressive effect, use it with the name of your favorite superstition - "quantum dowsing" sure sounds mighty serious.

11. Two more words: Paradigm shift.

12. Always claim that the other guy is "closed-minded" and that you're as free-thinking as a newborn baby. Other woo-woos love the concept of "open-mindedness" and will take you into their inner circle without question. They have no tolerance for those "mean old nasty" types who demand evidence for everything.

13. Drink heavily while posting.

14. You must believe that the word "anomaly" means proof of paranormal activity.

15. Use the word "anomaly" as often as possible.

16. When your position appears hopeless, your entire audience is laughing at you, and you've lost all credibility (and perhaps even won a Kook of the Month) threaten everyone within proximity with a lawsuit. You don't need to actually prepare a lawsuit, just make the threat. That will let them know you're a serious person.

17. Go make your own newsgroup with a group charter drawn up to keep out anyone who doesn't agree with your view of the world. Occasionally crosspost to other newsgroups from that one, then complain when people answer your posts, complain to their system admistrators that they're abusing the terms of your newsgroup and demand their accounts be yanked for abusive spamming. Respond to each answering message with a duplicate copy of the FAQ for your

newsgroup.

18. Open numerous accounts under other names, then post agreeable responses to your own messages from those accounts. Everybody knows that the only reason anybody disagrees with you is that they like the belong to "the group" and have no independent thought of their own. Just manufacture a group of people who agree with you, and the rest of the mindless zeebs will fall into line, tripping over each other to become one of your supporters.

19. Fix the 'reply to' line of any post you make, to direct responses to your email account - this will automatically mail you a copy of any response made to your posts on usenet. Send copies of these mails to the postmasters and sysadmins of anyone who posts a disagreeing answer to you. Refer to these people as 'internet terrorists' and demand their accounts be canceled immediately for sending you unwanted email spam.

20. Refer to anyone who doggedly uncovers your latest little scams, time after time as "stalkers." Write to their sysadmins and demand their accounts be removed for net abuse.

21. Remember to occasionally tell your opponents that you've handed all the information you've collected about them to the local police/Mounties/FBI who were extremely interested and grateful for the advance notice of where to find criminals like you. You don't actually have to collect any information, or send it to anybody, but this will keep your opponents edgy, and make them paranoid. Mention that the police/Mounties/FBI are closing in on them, and that their

day of reckoning is just moments away.

22. Refer to anyone who does not immediately agree with you as being uneducated on the matter, lacking in important information, or just plain too stupid to understand your magnificent statements.

23. Pretend to write a book. Nothing says "I am beyond reproach" like having written a book. If asked for an ISBN number, just make something up. Nobody ever looks at those anyway.

24. Pretend to have a degree. Never let yourself be pinned down to what kind or where you got it. Just state repeatedly that you have one, and therefore are superior, and may not be questioned upon any subject by anyone.

25. Claim that there is no evidence that you are a fraud, kook, net-abuser, spammer, or xxxx. Refer to any actual proof of this s "spinning" or "disinformation." Post messages that the system administrators of every system your opponents post from are on the verge of killing their accounts for net-abuse, and that you're going to set things right, and get rid of all these cynical lying fact-spinners by sending one final massive complaint against them all.

26. When all else fails.... SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM SPAM.....

27. When questioned, be sure to exclaim "They laughed at Galileo, too!" or perhaps "They laughed at Columbus, until he proved the earth was round!"

28. Always bear in mind that The Conspiracy Against You can do almost anything. After all, they've kept those 300 MPG carburetors secret for years.

29. Keep trotting out the one "respectable" scientist who might possibly have said something that could be construed as perhaps giving a hint that it may theoretically support your position. Even better if said scientist has said it outright. Ignore all complaints that the work is 50 years out of date, the scientist has no experience in the field in question or that other experts in the same field think said scientist is a complete loony (and they can prove it, too).

30. Dig out one reference that supports your position. Complain when someone presents a reference that refutes yours. Say that this means they can't think for themselves and your reference proves it. Ignore all queries on why you hold this hypocritical position.

31. Whenever you read something on the Internet, re-post it as fact. Never bother to do even basic research into the matter.

32. Be sure to repeatedly spam your petty political rants onto lots of unrelated, off-topic newsgroups. (Those folks reading rec.culture.needlepoint are just dying to read about how much you hate a certain politician!)

33. One word: "Hyperdimensional."

34. When debating, remember that the best technique to "proving" your hypothesis is to start with a supposition, and when you get to the third point, refer to the supposition as a "fact". This may cause just enough initial confusion to let you escape with a momentary triumph.

35. Sock Puppets are very useful. If you can't find a weak-minded soul who will blindly parrot you in support of your nonsense, create your own. Then you can refer to your "many" supporters.

36. Quote Einstein, and do so often. Quote things he said if possible, but Einstein has been dead for ages now and so it's permissible to bring him up to date. Change the odd word here and there to make it clear that Einstein would have supported your argument if only he knew what you know. Act as if any arbitrary Einstein quote supports your position.

37. Any and all communications problems including satellite failures, bad phone connections, mysterious messages when dialing known phone numbers, busy signals when trying to enter the grassy knoll on AOL, and radios left on during calls must be blamed on the 'Conspiracy' trying to 'silence the truth'.

38. Use lots of ALL CAPS letters. Use them randomly: "I was posting my URL in alt.paranormal/alt.astrology. Then I was stopped because A MAJORITY OF POSTERS, PSEUDO-SKEPTIC RAVING FANATICS SCREAMED ABOUT IT."

39. Beware the "goodtimes" virus.

40. When all else fails, try to redefine what "skeptical", "skeptic" and "skepticism" mean so that you become a 'real' skeptic who accepts your own nonsense at face value.

41. Refer to yourself in the third person.

(originally posted in sci.skeptic and alt.fan.art-bell, based on an original idea by Reality Check)

Also:

Logical Fallacies & the Art of Debate

How about the tail rotor? Enclosed like the first image I posted?

ETA: I wanted to confirm it was not a NOTAR (NO TAil Rotor) aircraft; they achieve significant noise reduction with that system.

Cell phone calls are faked.

Peter,

Perhaps we should wait until we have to hear what Jack has to say before we draw any conclusions.

"If someone refutes your evidence, then ignore their evidence"

Not a wise move, IMO. What if they are right?

I welcome dissent to the opinion I put forward. If my view is incorrect, then people have to have the opportunity to tell me as such. If I am wrong, then people have to be able to tell me such.

I welcome "provocateurs" or "disinformation agents" because I am confident my viewpoints can withstand the scrutiny of others.

If people make false statements, I will be able to show that they are false.

Jack,

You mention "impossible cellphone calls".

Could you detail the specific calls you have issues with?

Thanks.

I can't make a poll within the thread, so I have started a new poll. Let me know if you are unhappy with the question and / or choices.

Poll questions added.

Or was the tail rotor actually missing, like this?

Okay - resembled the Jetranger. That gives us a shape to look at. You say the tail was not open. Do you mean like this?

Matt makes a good point about the reg numbers; there is a general size they have to be, but in some circumstances they can be quite small. For example, ex-military aircraft in authentic markings. In cases like this, the rego is very small. I'll see what the FAA regulations say.

I would strongly suggest calling the local Air Traffic Control section about the aircraft; they may be able to answer your questions quite easily.

Thank you for that Peter, although I would suggest that the 911 Research information be taken with caution:

This image was purportedly taken by Frank Silecchia. I've seen it a number of times. When I ran a Google search on "Frank Silecchia", I got a whole bunch of hits on a construction worker who found a cross of steel beams among the rubble and became a sort of folk hero of the faithful shortly after 9/11.

I can find no reliable information on whether or not he took this picture. For me, it leaves the source of the picture deeply in doubt. There are few clues to determine whether or not it's even taken at Ground Zero.

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=155...amp;postcount=2

Frank Silecchia seems to me more involved with the establishment of the WTC Cross and possibly suffering from health problems due to his efforts during the WTC cleanup.

I can't seem to find anything that actually confirms he was the photographer, and the date on which it was taken. I think that the date that is was taken and confirming it was taken at the WTC site are important.

Peter,

Are you able to tell us when that image was taken?

It hardly matters. Even the official version didn't get steel up to yellow-hot temperatures and there are drips of metal coming off it - and there were reliable and multiple sighings of pools of molten [flowing] steel - as well as [later] cooled lumps of same - called meteorites. This must have been during the clean-up and not in the first days - no very hot metal was found on the top layers in the first days [cooled by air and water sprayed upon if ever there]. I'm sure there is a way to date the photo, but again, it doens't matter for my point. Molten metal and ultra-high temperatures were found for weeks - well over a month, if I remember correctly. Molten metal was not covered in the official version.....nor were LHO's intelligence connections. [i.e. ignored]

OK I found the date of the photo Sept 27th Source: Frank Silecchia

Professor Steven Jones has cautiously determined the temperature to be:

"as a salmon-to-yellow-hot temperature (1550 - 1900oF, 845 - 1040oC)."

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/moltensteel.html

http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&...sa=N&tab=wi

This might be of interest:

The U.S. Army and CIA developed what could be considered a stealthy helicopter during the Vietnam War. There, they were primarily interested in reducing the amount of noise that the helicopter generated, and they named the helicopter The Quiet One. Light, quiet and stealthy helicopters could be used for clandestine missions, quick in-and-out assignments without being noticed. A Special Forces A-Team performing an extraction could grab their target, climb a rope, and be extracted by a stealth helicopter. Other stealthy helicopter has focued on reducing detectability by radar and infra-red sensors, including the suppression of hot engine exhaust gases.

In the 1980s, Hughes and other American aircraft manufacturers investigated concepts for the construction of radar-evading "Stealth" helicopters. The US designed stealthy helicopter-type aircraft. One program was the McDonnell Douglas X-wing. Stealth features of this hybrid craft included using the stalled blades, when in aeroplane mode, as radar reflectors, and using McDonnell Douglas NOTAR (no tail rotor) technology to eliminate tell tale tail rotor radar signature. The X-wing project had an unclassified counterpart, which allowed components of the 'black' X-wing to be obtained under cover.

According to one report, a classified stealth helicopter was being tested at the Groom Lake Air Force base as early as 1990. The code name for the helicopter as "T.E.-K," standing for "Test and Evaluation Project K." The F-117 stealth fighter was reportedly known as "T.E.-A," and the B-2 stealth bomber, known as "T.E.-B." The 2/6/95 issue of Aviation Week & Space Technology reported that the Air force had a silent NOTAR helicopter and a stealth helicopter inside Area 51.

For the conventional helicopter, there are two fundamental systems that contribute to the generation of near-field and far-field noise, the main rotor and the tail rotor. Each rotor emits unique and recognizable sounds due to its highly individualized operating condition. Engine noise is typically of secondary significance.

A helicopter main rotor generates primarily low frequency noise and, in certain operating regimes, high amplitude low-to-mid-frequency noise modulated at the blade passage frequency. The low frequency rotor noise is made up of basic loading noise and broadband turbulence noise, each a function of lift and rotational speed. These sources are present in any lifting rotor.

Additional sources, such as Blade Vortex Interaction (BVI) noise and High Speed Impulsive (HSI) noise, become dominant in specific operating regimes, namely in descents and at high forward airspeeds, respectively. BVI noise can be the most significant contributor, because it occurs during a helicopter’s approach to the landing area.

Operational noise reduction modifications involve the use of known low noise techniques and modifications to flight paths in an attempt to minimize the noise “footprint.”

Current technology for noise reduction employed in new rotorcraft designs, must ensure that the cost, performance, and other impositions on the design are met in concert with reduced noise.

Control of main rotor noise has traditionally been accomplished by the judicious selection of rotor blade configurations and rotational tip speed. Airfoils, blade planforms, and tip shapes are chosen which mitigate the effects of HSI noise and BVI noise. For a given design gross weight, increasing the blade chord and changing the number of rotor blades are means of reaching an acoustically desirable rotational tip speed. The blade number change also alters the frequency distribution of the sound generated.

The most direct method of controlling BVI noise is by reducing or diffusing the tip vortex. Tip shapes such as the sub-wing, Ogee tip, and others have been shown to cause measurable reductions in BVI noise by modifying the vortex structure.

Conventional means of noise reduction, e.g., tip speed reduction, tip shapes and airfoil tailoring, are inferior to several innovative design concepts: modulated blade spacing and x-force control when used to significantly reduce noise with minimal performance degradation and no vibration increase.

Helicopter main rotors have historically been designed with equally spaced blades. This equal spacing from one blade to the next translates to a main rotor acoustic spectrum characterized by a single fundamental blade-passage frequency and its harmonics. As many as 20 or 30 harmonics are commonly present in a main rotor's acoustic spectrum, each of which is a multiple of the fundamental blade-passage frequency. In a typical spectral plot, these frequencies appear as pronounced, ordered “peaks” spread evenly across the acoustic spectrum.

Since the acoustic frequencies associated with the rotating blades are directly related to the blade spacing, intuitively the use of unevenly spaced blades holds the potential of lower sound levels and less perceptibility. The acoustic effect of uneven or modulated blade spacing is to generate several blade-passage frequencies, one for each unique angle between blades. Each blade passage frequency, in turn, generates its own set of harmonics. The total acoustic energy is thereby spread over a broader range of frequencies, rather than being concentrated at one blade-passage frequency and a single set of harmonics.

Main rotor designs that incorporate modulated blade spacing have reduced peak noise levels in most flight operations. X-force control alters the helicopter's force balance whereby the miss distance between main rotor blades and shed vortices can be controlled. This control provides a high potential to mitigate BVI noise radiation. A main rotor design, incorporating the modulated blade spacing concept, offers significantly reduced noise levels and the potential of a break-through in how a helicopter’s sound is perceived and judged.

The advantages of the modulated blade spacing concept are many: it has minimal impact on performance and potentially reduces vibration; it reduces sound levels and improves sound quality when incorporated on tail rotors; it lessens perceptibility; and it potentially has aural detection benefits. It is believed that the lower source frequencies associated with a main rotor can be altered similarly to those of a tail rotor.

One configuration studied had five blades, a radius of 19.5 feet, a thrust weighted chord of 12 inches, and a rotational tip speed of 665 feet per second. This rotor incorporated modulated blade spacing with angles between blades of 72, 68.5, 79, 65, and 76.5 degrees. If incorporated on the baseline helicopter, the rotor results in a 16 percent payload penalty for the full fuel case. The cruise airspeed would be reduced by 6.2 percent and the maximum airspeed by 17.2 percent. The reduction in peak noise levels is predicted to be 4, 8 and 4 dBA during takeoff, flyover and approach, respectively. The noise reductions up-range (15-20 seconds before overhead) are even greater: 16, 16 and 9 dBA during takeoff, flyover and approach, respectively.

In new R&D acquisitions, were the Government is trying to develop a new weapon system, such as a stealth helicopter, and then enter into production but has no previous experience with the program objectives, is a good candidate for a CPFF contract type. This is to share the technical and resulting cost risk with the contractor. This allows the contractor to concentrate on the job at hand (i.e., to try and prove that the idea can be developed into a working model by solving the technical problems they are facing) versus focusing on how much money they have spent to date under the contract.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/sys...rcraft/mh-x.htm

The canceled RAH-66 Comanche helicopter would have been a stealth helicopter, not only in noise levels but also in radar signature.

Peter,

Are you able to tell us when that image was taken?

We can make a poll here, if you like.

There have been, and continue to be, pushes to make helicopters quieter. Like jet engines, people dislike the noise they create. The culprits are the main rotor, and to a lessor extent, the tail rotor. Sweeping the blade tip helped reduce noise and increase blade efficiency. You can see it on aircraft like the Lynx, Seahawk, Blackhawk, Merlin, etc.

I don't suppose you rang up your local Air Traffic Control centre to ask who they were, and what type they were? Helicopters in a black paint scheme are reasonably popular, so it's hard to tell what type they were and how much noise they make.