Sisyphus

Just before I leave this thread for good it is nice to see Phanerothyme post something constructive, thoughtful and useful! My faith is restored!! I'd like to chat some more but cannot be bothered any more as have come across this sort of horseplay, above, on other posts on this site.

Just to pick at your statement Chris....I was asking if you had worked there. "What do you know that's different?"....Tony I never said I did. I do some research unlike your kind selves. I could continually pick holes in both of your arguments but I really don't have the time so will not bother. I never said anything Chris said about radar was wrong aside from they would not polish a stealth aircraft to track it. Tony, yes you are right, I am a plane spotter!!!! Oooooh well done! I also work in the aviation industry and have also flown gliders/light aircraft......would you like my vitalstatistics too? The pilot could borrow my phone if he likes as it has a GPS locator.....I wasn't talking about masts.....have you been watching 24/CSI??? Do I really have to explain everything to you both??????????? Feel free to carry on flaming but I'm about to cancel my account as it's not worth the school playground type behaviour on here....pah! I'm sure you'll both want the last word though!!! Ha ha ha ha!!!! My last word is that it is this sort of petty cr@p that makes the internet a bad place to be.....I try and clarify a point and then I'm wrong as it doesn't fit in with your views. I personally hate the fact that people can go on the internet and believe incorrect info. It's all the bloody computer programmers faults!! I can say that as I used to be one! I'm sure you won't believe that too. In fairness Tony I should have know with your devils advocate tagline!! Arguing for the sake of arguing.....what a waste of life!!! Good luck and I hope you make many new friends.

"you still couldn't track exactly where an aircraft is from the pilots mobile phone. " - incorrect. "Yes, I lurve lording it over others. That's why I have posted so many times on Sheffield Forum in all these years (hint, the numbers are on the left). " - hmm what does that prove? It wasn't from reading books at home either - Skunk Works perhaps??? "excuse me if I sound like I sometimes know a bit what I might be talking about" - oh dear Chris you've missed the point again, I am saying you don't. Well both of you have proven to me, at least, there isn't much point continuing this chat, and to be quite honest, being a member on SF. I just tried to share some info/thoughts based on the industry I actually work in but there are always a few too many experts about. I think ill stick with discussing topics like these with my peers/on aviation forums instead. I think that references the "reading books at home" statement. Just to pick another hole in your earlier argument that I didn't read your whole post.....I actually quoted the entirety in my post. Get a life guys.

Hi Tony, I don't want to do a Chris to you but......."Obviously this is not how it is done in the aviation industry." I was just exemplifying a very easy way to track an aircraft off the top of my head.

Chris, Perhaps you want to read your own posts rather than being condescending to others with what appears to be some sort of superiority complex. Or are you just one of these surfers who just enjoy, in a foolhardy way, lording it over others from the comfort of your PC? You say you were speculating so I responded with some factual experience based knowledge. If I didn't read your post I wouldn't have replied to it! And no, you are wrong, I probably won't fit in as I like to base my discussions on research based knowledge and try not to offend others. Perhaps you should read up on the very beginnings of stealth technology in the 40's/50's to modern day aerospace design philosophies and then make an informed response. For one, if you just sat and thought about it for one minute, a pilot could merely turn a mobile phone on in the cockpit and could be tracked as to exactly where the aircraft is. Obviously this is not how it is done in the aviation industry. Christ!

"You want to read my post again, only slowly?".....not really! There are other ways of tracking planes aside from radar. Anyway I haven't got time to argue the point (unless you can show me a polished F-117.....the Have Blue was not coated in RAM but certainly wasn't polished) or be instructed how to read.

You want to scatter not reflect. Scatter and absorbtion (applied coatings) is priority. Polishing would be a big no-no as it would stick out like a sore thumb in daylight and any return, however small, would be increased.

..........................

He might have been! He also did work on proving Newton's Laws are not 100% perfect. That's thrown the book out of the window!

Personally I think it wuld be a great idea to fly the Taranis over built up areas to see if anyone saw it! Also stealth technology is also about disrupting, cooling and also cancelling engine noise as much as poss so you may not have heard them. No point being invisible whilst everyone can hear you flying overhead!! S

Fair enough Frank....all I'm saying is don't discount what I'm saying as rubbish. There is plenty of technology out there that the general public will not be privy to for many years to come. Sorry the balloon analogy would have best exemplified by the Montgolfier brothers. I bet when they flew the same thing happened as it did in Woodford when the Vulcan first took to the air....."What the £$%& is that????" Cheshire ground to a halt! I'm not trying to stray from the thread....just postulating what may or may not have been seen and perhaps the technology it uses. Many mention humming sounds which would be eminated by a large electromagnetic field generators. Max, I've been following this case for many years with great interest and hope you keep up the good work no matter what many naysayers may say/print. I think we should get the 'UFO Hunters' over from the states. Would make a good program whatever the outcome!

Sorry Frank I think you need to read up on your physics a bit more referencing what I have said above. It is not cut and dried and, no, if the military discovered a technology of great importance you would not hear about it in 6 minutes and find a patent for it. You only know about atomic weaponry because it was used and there was direct evidence. You mention flying machines need wings etc etc. Have you ever seen a helium balloon fly away. QED. You say cars have wheels etc. Do you know you can drastically increase MPG on a combustion engine by injecting water and playing with timing etc? Probably not as certain technologies are bought up and not put on general release as it wil cost certain companies a lot of their revenue. I totally agree in that Joe Bloggs is never going to develop something like this in a garage, it takes a hell of a lot of money/development. I suppose you'll say time travel is a load of old cobblers too but it only takes a little bit of research on the work done at CERN that atomic particles have been tracked that don't tie in with accepted physical concepts. As with most technologies we still are really in the wild west era. To think we have developed all physical concepts to the max extent is really quite jaded. Do some further research on magnetism and it's relative effects and you'll see we haven't even touched the tip of the iceberg. Mass, magnetism, time...they are all related. Magnetic spin, torsion fields.....strange effects. To say we would have gone to the moon in the 30s/40s probably would have been greeted with exactly the same scepticism. Everyone laughed at Robert Goddard. May be worth looking into the fact that in an absolute vacuum at absolute zero energy can still be measured. Explain that one. Sorry you'll need a more convincing argument than that.

Cheers Ladybird.....interesting stuff. Will have to follow up and have a look myself.

Ladybirds, Could you give me any more information as to the location of those woods? Ties up with a cycle ride I had in the peaks years ago and stumbled upon a firing range. Funny there were two lots of soldiers on the hill.....one higher up and one lower down and both facing out from the hill as though protecting it. They were not amused by our presence!! Ever heard the story about the secret RAF base in the peaks underground???

Christ alive I thought this was a discussion about the 1997 incident and some turbine blades that had been found....... Anyway I think it would be wise for some folk to be a little more objective about this. a) Einstein was researching problems with Newtons laws.....they are not definitive. Reading on this subject will open your eyes. After all theroetical physics wouldn't exist if this were the case. b) UFO = "unidentified flying object". This does not mean aliens. c) Think about gravity....it is not such a huge force to overcome. We fly airplanes for example. Look into superconductors, induction theory, maglev trains and rail guns for example. You can even make metallic objects hover with lasers. d) If we had anti-gravity craft we WOULD NOT advertise them for security and commercial reasons. There is a lot of money tied up in the aerospace business. May be worth looking into the statements made by Martin, Lockheed et al in the 50's referring to a comparison to the manhattan project. Nothing was mentioned again. e) If a top secret plane crashes it is almost impossible to clear up all the wreckage. You can still find small pieces of A-12 in the Nevada desert. Needless to say the predecessor to the SR-71 was pretty much top secret. Some research into trials Nazi physicists were supposedly conducting towards the end of the war is quite an eye opener. Before anyone chimes in I am not some sort of right wing loony.....just an avid follower of advanced aeronautical science and physical concepts. Some of the concepts above will make you think twice about some of the craft that could be in the skies being 'alien'. I remember I was cleaning my bike in the back garden (I lived in Crookes at the time) on the night mentioned and did hear some jet aircraft and odd booms in the distance. As an avid aviation enthusiast it did make me wonder what on earth was going on. Personally if anything I think there may be some credence in it being a new aircraft etc. The F-117, B2 etc are pretty much old hat nowadays. If you read up on the budgets and personnel numbers of Lockheed's Skunk Works, for example, these guys are pretty busy but on what??? Personally I would like to conduct my own research into the apparent flight paths and the areas of Strines where the alledged landing site was. If the gamekeeper believed his hills were on fire then that is most likely the obvious place to start searching first. Just my 2 penneth. Don't forget nothing is black and white...it's the shades of grey in-between we need to focus on.