Flying saucers or flying wings ?

In 1947 Kenneth Arnold, a pilot flying near Mt Rainier in Washington State saw a group of what he described as flying saucers, which was mis-interpreted by the press/public due to his statement " like saucers skipping on water" He never said they were saucer shaped.

There are a few links here to tie together my hypothesis that what he actually saw were captured and American built or completed Horten flying wings which were being developed in Germany and other experimental craft of ours.

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl...mage_result&resnum=7&ct=image&ved=0CBsQ9QEwBg

http://images.google.com/imgres?img...ages?q=hitler%27s+flying+wing&hl=en&sa=N&um=1

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01438/stealth_1438973c.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Arnold


It makes sense to me that the Americans after capturing the spoils from the Germans during and after the war, would have tested these craft and in fact did make very similar ones of our own.

These would have been:

1) Extremely unusual, like nothing except a small number of people would have known existed.

from Arnold:

"He then thought they might be a new type of jet and started looking intently for a tail and was surprised that he couldn't find any."

"According to Clark[5] Arnold said that one of the objects was rather crescent shaped, while the other eight objects were more circular"

"The encounter gave him an "eerie feeling", but Arnold suspected he had seen test flights of a new U.S. military aircraft."

"A similar sighting of eight objects also occurred over Tulsa, Oklahoma on July 12, 1947. In this instance, a photo was taken and published in the Tulsa Daily World the following day (photo at right). Interestingly, the photographer, Enlo Gilmore, said that in blowups of the photo, the objects resembled baseball catcher's mitts or flying wings. He was of the opinion that the military had a secret fleet of flying wing airplanes"


2) jet powered, very fast, unlike anything that most pilots would have come across at the time

"Arnold conservatively and arbitrarily rounded this down to 1,200 miles (1,900 km) an hour, still faster than any known aircraft, which had yet to break the sound barrier. It was this supersonic speed in addition to the unusual saucer or disk description that seemed to capture people's attention."

No mention of a sonic boom from anyone. Fast but ET ? Did the ET's find a way to break that law ?

So from this started the whole saucer idea, from there Roswell and all of the others.

My suggestion is not that ET hasn't or isn't visiting.

But that not only was the saucer idea a case of misunderstanding, but that we wouldn't necessarily know an ET craft if we saw one.

What would an ET craft from a species thousands of years more advanced than us look like ?

Thoughts ?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Below is an artistic rendering of what I think such a craft would appear like to us. I have been as detailed as possible.























End here

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Exactly. Whatever we think it will look like, it would most likely be something we haven't even imagined yet.

Which, like the look and designs of our hollywood imagined ET craft have changed with our changing technology, the look of imagined ET craft in the future will continue to change alongside with what we know at the time.

I know/believe you have looked at this information as well, and maybe at much greater depth, have you come to a similar conclusion on the event ?

Do you see something that I am missing or would falsify my thoughts on the encounter ?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It is my wild guess that O has implied that a highly advanced technology would be able to control their visibility and probably choose to appear to us

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

in full stealth mode to avoid getting us too excited about the whole thing.

Right or wrong about O post intention, such an assessment about their choice of appearance is my guess.

What would be the configuration of a 1,000 year advanced vehicle in full visibility reference frame? Cheeses. Look at how much different stagecoaches are built than just 200 years ago. Or buggy whips. It would be pure luck if anyone could now imagine how much transportation science and technology will advance and change in 1,000 years.

 

Yes UH, my primary intention was to indicate that the craft probably would be rendered invisible to us and secondly that getting a hit on what it might actually look like would be pure blind luck.

jpappl,
I haven't paid more than cursory attention to the Arnold sightings. I saw that as being a trigger event, most likely explicable in the same way that the vast majority of such sightings are visible. i.e. some natural phenomenon that was misperceived or misinterpreted. Such study as I have done on UFOs has focused on later events that were better and more critically documented.

 

I agree with it being a trigger event and that is the point of my OP, that it triggered the idea of the saucer representing the ET craft, we had Roswell and beyond all with one focus, the "flying saucer" from outerspace.

So, what are the odds that shortly after Arnolds event, did we get inundated with flying saucers operated by ET ? Including a crashed saucer in Roswell.

Thus, it would be prudent to call all saucer stories misperceptions or lies and all saucer photos and video's since that event, frauds.

I am still intrigued by some of the ancient art especially ones like this:

http://alienufoupdates.info/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/6000yearoldcaveartofalienandufos.jpg

And to be fair, the events you may be referring to like the Iran airforce incident (cylinder shape and or ball of light) and some to me that are interesting like the japan airline incident in 1986

http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case287.htm

with ground and air radar and visual sightings and this:

http://www.ufoevidence.org/cases/case1125.htm

with the same, air and ground radar with visual

none of which depicts the craft as saucer shaped.

 

And, would you believe....the Roswell crashed flying saucers were not saucer shaped. One of the claimed eyewitness accounts described a "canoe" shaped small vessel. Another described a kind of an airplane-looking fuselage with no wing. Of course the famous debris field consisted of amorphous small disconnected debris not amenable to deriving an overall shape.

There is a severe mismatch between the popular concept of the classic 1950s flying saucer and the proposal that a highly advanced technology created it. A technology able to travel light years between stars which was easily visible and fragile enough to crash a lot of times? No way. The 1950s saucer generic description was slightly primitive compared to 2009 aircraft, with the exception of the alleged verrry interesting exotic propulsion technology.

There is no way in hell that the kind of craft written about in Roswell accounts traveled between stars to get here.

Weather balloon. Military prototype. Whatever. But not ET a 1,000 years advanced.

 

I have to respond to my own hypothesis and claim it does not hold water, at least at this point.

In my research I have not found supporting documentation for such a test flight. Two things falsify it.

1) No documentation to support 9 flying wing planes in the air on any test flight at one time. He claimed he saw 9 craft.

2) No documentation to support a flight over Washington State.

Too bad, I was hoping I found a way to explain the sighting.

It is still possible that they did such a test flight and didn't document it, but it wasn't really that much of a secret at the time and with the amount of documentation available it doesn't make sense to leave such a test out of the information that is already there.

So while still possible, it is very unlikely. Oh well.

 

Military secrecy can never be underestimated. In 1947 a squadron of prototype Cutlasses could have been flying. Flying wings were invisible to crude radar of the day. Problem is the lack of tail. Rudder cuold not have been replaced by crude automatic autopilot of that day. And, even stretching of imagination cannot make Cutlass go 1200 MPH.

 

Not really.

What on Earth makes you think that?

I suggest you take another look at the F7U design - it had TWO fins/ rudders.
And autopilots controlled flight direction/ course, not aircraft stability.

 

In 1947, according to clairvoyant pundit, US military could not possibly have been flying aircraft and keeping it a secret until now

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

Invisibility of flying wing to radar of 1940s is published historical fact. Fact is questioned by those ignorant of history but who have hair trigger to start unnecessary fight.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

.

Arnold saw no tail. Ergo Arnold saw no rudder. If Arnold observation was 100% accurate, then 1947 aircraft without rudder and without present day autopilot such as used on Stealth Fighter F17 or B2 Stealth Bomber was big problem.

To help with reading comprehension of pundit, I expand earlier post to reveal tentative contemplation that Arnold observation was inaccurate. Assuming that Arnold actually saw something, that might have been in the air in 1947, list of candidates is slim. Cutlass clandestine flight before historically published roll out is one possibility.

Please, learn a lot more about aircraft and their control systems before making any more bone head inflammatory comments.

 

Veering off into nonsense: I said there couldn't have been a squadron of prototype Cutlasses flying.
Nothing about other aircraft.

No it isn't - please provide a link of where you came across this misconception.
Radar reflectivity depends on a number of things: shape being merely one of them. Air intakes allow reflection from the engine face, the size of the aircraft and/ or excrescences may be direct multiples of the wavelength and give reflections, the skin itself will re-radiate, etc etc.

So you weren't referring to the Cutlass any more...

One or two flying could be possible: a squadron of them? No way.
The contract wasn't awarded until June '46, the first one didn't fly until Sep '48 and proved to be troublesome, requiring modification.
There were only three (XF7U-1) until 1950 (and only 4 built in '50), and one of those crashed and was destroyed in March '49.

The bone head statement was yours. Autopilots are for navigation purposes, the flight control system is for stability (or the aircraft is configured specifically from the outset, which affects other flight characteristics).

 

Quit trying to waste my time. You are obviously trolling and trying to start a fight whereas I am not the least bit interested in arguing just to be arguing. You have too much idle time and just like to argue. You would be happy arguing about which color is best for your pet cockroaches, purple or black.

 

In other words you can't back up your contentions and are going off to find someone who will believe your nonsense, leaving it unchallenged.

 

You have been awarded the IGNORE BUTTON PRIZE. Go FYJ. Correction; Go FYD.

We can now call you IG for short. Or, do you prefer IGGY? Please do tell me. I am all ears to hear your next post.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

In a reasonable effort, as a result of my interest roused by the thread subject, I have tried to figure out what could have happened back in 1947. Flying saucers as portrayed in 1940s and 1950s literature are unbelievable as interstellar craft. So how could they be planetary? Not a gullible dreamer, I am skeptical of government. Perhaps government military tested machines that were seen and not understood. In 1947 primitive radar found flying wing aircraft to be invisible. Government would certainly have tried to suppress this astounding fact as a military secret. Flying wing aircraft would have been made to be short-lived to try to hide the secret. Anybody who believes that the official published records of military activity is true is a dreamer. It is concievable that the F7 Cutlass was built in larger quantity earlier than the published record. As soon as it was discovered that it was invisible to radar, it would have become very interesting to all the generals. Having an invisible airplane, they would have wanted to speed up its development. A squadron a year early is not unbelievable. The Cutlass was doomed by extremely poor engine development. But tests of manuevering characteristics would have been considered of great importance. Arnold may have seen a Black Ops squadron of Cutlasses booming and zooming to chart the performance envelope, explaining the "skipping" motion.

Anybody who sincerely believes that the US military could not have built and flown a squadron of airplanes a year before their official roll out date is a total and pitiful idiot.

 

In 1947, or any other year, flying wing aircraft were not (and are not) "invisible" to radar, and the F7U Cutlass even less so given the fact that it had twin tails, enormous intakes and a large cockpit cavity, not to mention the radar-transparent radome and internal scanner which would have made a fine reflector.

Capt Hawley Russell, quoted in Naval Fighters No.6 Chance Vought F7U Cutlass.
Oh wait, isn't a GCA approach controlled by a guy on the ground/ carrier? Using radar to track the aircraft?

Oops, you missed the point: I didn't say I didn't think they couldn't, I said they hadn't.
And since the F7U wasn't radar invisible your "point" is moot anyway.
Anyone who thinks that flying wing aircraft are (or were) invisible to radar is equally idiotic.
Additionally, anyone who resorts to inventing their own "facts" isn't that bright either.
Even the YB-49 flying wing bomber put in time as a radar calibration aircraft.

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&so...4cu-tzIi8bhaBDLkg&sig2=fqp5CAL3bLiU0_DNzpiPrQ
Quantitative Measurements of Radar Echoes from Aircraft XIII. F2H-2B
If it was invisible why request the figures?

 

By now, D... has posted an acid filled post.

D... has made bone head demand that my conjectures be backed up (to satisfy D...'s arrogance.)

Duh. Conjectures are speculations. Speculations are, duh, flights of fancy. Only a genuine moron would demand that somebody prove their flights of fancy.

My posts were guesses of what might have happened to be a rational explanation of Arnold sighting. D..., by logical elimination, rejects my guesses. Therefore D... obviously believes that Arnold saw Flying Saucers manned(!) by LGMs and BEMs.

Did LGMs and BEMs come from D... home planet or other one?

 

As usual you wilfully misread.
Acid-filled?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Conjecture?
Hardly...

You made an assertion, not a conjecture. Back it up.

Wrong: you based it all off something YOU claim to be fact, and isn't. Therefore there's nothing rational about it.

I note you're still clueless too.

 

Uno hoo,

Well it wasn't much of a secret, here from 1947.

http://blog.modernmechanix.com/2008/05/30/inside-the-flying-wing/

It is concievable, but speculation is not the same thing as evidence.

They had flying wings in sufficient numbers, that is a fact, but there is no evidence to support a flight of 9 on one test at that time or before.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d6/YB49-9_300.jpg

Ironically, count em, there is nine on the strip.

First of all, where are you getting this information ?

Secondly, it is irrelevant as the original idea was that Arnold saw them, which makes the radar part fairly unimportant to the sighting.

Thirdly, when they recently rebuilt the Horten wing to test it's radar signature, they found it was only 20% stealthier than other fighters at the time.

I didn't say they could not have, as I indicated it was still possible. But there is no evidence to support such a flight.

So, I ask why would they offer so much detail about test flights and construction, modifications of such craft and then leave out significant details of such a test flight ?