posted by RRRGroup at
Sunday, February 06, 2011
That's more of your best UFO evidence . . . how the government has reacted to the phenomenon and the impact it has had on our own aviation advances.Could we reverse engineer an entire alien spacecraft? We could figure out what it's structural metals are made of and copy design elements. Propulsion and avionics . . . we'll have to keep watching for that.
By Frank Stalter, at Sunday, February 06, 2011
And, Frank, this goes to our conjecture -- more than a conjecture actually -- that the Navy is the place where one will find the UFO explanation, not the U.S. Air Force.RR
By RRRGroup, at Sunday, February 06, 2011
I wouldn't doubt it Richie. They were obviously the better established branch in the late 40s. Adm. Solberg was obviously a key guy in titanium development . . . see the famous 1948 Symposium. Can't rule out the USAF though. ATIC . . . Wright-Patterson . . . RAND Corp. There's a lot hiding in plain sight.
Sure, Frank, the Air Force is involved but the Navy is on top of the phenomenon, and maybe because the things use the oceans as their base (if they're alien).RR
You are not, I hope, suggesting that if we want to know the answer to the UFO phenomenon we should look to the US Navy and their developments since WW2. Why the US Navy anyway? Aren't other navies worth looking at?The only way any branch of the military, of any country, could reverse engineer an alien spacecraft would be to capture one first. Which military branch (and of which country) has done so?They could of course develop an advanced craft of their own, and have indeed done so. But you are not seriously suggesting this new drone plane is in any way an answer to the unexplained UFO sightings? Reminds me of the CIA historian Gerald Haines and his 'history' of UFOs some years back. Interesting history, yes. As an answer to UFOS, just plain wrong.
By cda, at Sunday, February 06, 2011
Speaking of the Navy (interesting find by the way)it seems to have the unique history, in UFO lore, of being always at the fore front of UFO "disclosure," always against the Army's wishes I might add. McLaughlin was only one of several. There was even the Admirial who used his position with the Armed Forces official Broadcasting Service to denounce the Air Forc's poor job with UFOs. That caused quite a stir for awhile. And with these accusations were coupled the info about the Radlab and the captured UFO.Yes, there does seem to be a Navy connection of the thrid kind. One might even dare to add Forrestal to the list? Its ok, Im a conspiracy nut so I can go there ;)
By Bob Koford, at Sunday, February 06, 2011
CDA and Bob:We (me in particular) have a thing online here and at our RRRGroup blog (I think) that hypothesizes Arnold's UFO sighting was of a bevy of Navy test aircraft (jets) in 1947.Christopher, The U.S. Navy's fingerprints are all over the UFO history, but no one has really looked at that branch of the U.S. service closely, thinking that the U.S. Air Force was studying the phenomenon via Blue Book...plus the feeling that UFOs are flying objects so therefore the Air Force would be the agency to look at them seriously.As Bob notes, the Navy has had its hands all over the UFO story from the beginning, World War II, when the things were spotted from ships at sea, including one that allegedly Franklin Delano Roosevelt was on, and seen by him and his minions.To shirk the Navy's role in UFOs is a major mistake, whether they are alien or misidentified craft has been a major fault with most UFO researchers.RR
By the way, I am working on an update that will dove tail with this nicely...at least i think it will. Even though its on the "mexico Impact", I am presenting historical material that will be illuminating overall, as regards to everyone's positions at the time.I want to finish it with the day, but also want to make sure I don't skimp so, we'll see.
Keep us in the loop Robert.We're sitting here with bated breath.RR
Post a Comment
A group of media guys
View my complete profile