🚀 go-pugleaf

On Tue, 13 Aug 96 22:12:05 GMT, olejbren@idgonline.no (Ole Jonny
Br�nne) wrote:

>Did the Belgian Air Force indicate anything more, after their press conference, 


On my homepage, there is a section of our Belgium UFO.. (it's a bad
homepage, (gonna change it soon), but anyway..)

www.ping.be/~ping2505

According to the Sunday Times article, John Pike, science policy director
of the American Federation of Scientists, says that a full-size version
[of the wave rider] could be flying.  Pike is quoted as saying that the
public disclosure of the LoFlyte seems odd, and leads him to the conclusion
that there may well be classified work in this area.

The article indicates that if this is correct, it might explain several
sightings since 1990 of an unidentified triangular craft.

Paul

On Wed, 14 Aug 1996 19:27:37 -0700, morris@best.com (Paul Morris)
wrote:

>According to the Sunday Times article, John Pike, science policy director
>of the American Federation of Scientists, says that a full-size version
>[of the wave rider] could be flying.  Pike is quoted as saying that the
>public disclosure of the LoFlyte seems odd, and leads him to the conclusion
>that there may well be classified work in this area.
>
>The article indicates that if this is correct, it might explain several
>sightings since 1990 of an unidentified triangular craft.

This is what I was thinking.  It's strange for the government to be
showing their hand this early with all the LoFlyte publicity.  You
have to wonder, for every declassified project, what new classified
one is starting up?

Hunter
Quake nick - "Grendel"

"My time is spilt milk"  -FNM

Hunter <hitchb@erinet.com> wrote:
> It's strange for the government to be
>showing their hand this early with all the LoFlyte publicity.


It was announced the same way as any other NASA
flight research project.  There was nothing the
least bit strange about it.

On Thu, 15 Aug 1996 11:44:29 GMT, dadams@netcom.com (Dean Adams)
wrote:

>Hunter <hitchb@erinet.com> wrote:
>> It's strange for the government to be
>>showing their hand this early with all the LoFlyte publicity.
>
>It was announced the same way as any other NASA
>flight research project.  There was nothing the
>least bit strange about it.

Dean, stop and think about it for a minute.  There have been aircraft
capable of a top speed of Mach 5 (X-15) and cruise at Mach 3 (SR-71)
since the sixties.  Do you really think it's taken this long to come
up with a *prototype* of a vehicle that can cruise at Mach 5?  

The press release reads as if the project prototype has already been
proven when the craft hasn't even flown under its own power.  It just
doesn't have the same "wait and see what happens" feel to it that
other experimental designs have had. 

Infer what you want, but you know the government never tells us
everything.

Hunter
Quake nick - "Grendel"

"My time is spilt milk"  -FNM

In article <32143852.991220@news.erinet.com>, Hunter <hitchb@erinet.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 15 Aug 1996 11:44:29 GMT, dadams@netcom.com (Dean Adams)
>wrote:
>>It was announced the same way as any other NASA
>>flight research project.  There was nothing the
>>least bit strange about it.
>
>Dean, stop and think about it for a minute.  There have been aircraft
>capable of a top speed of Mach 5 (X-15) and cruise at Mach 3 (SR-71)
>since the sixties.  Do you really think it's taken this long to come
>up with a *prototype* of a vehicle that can cruise at Mach 5?  

Such a vehicle takes both FUNDING (a lot), and a MISSION.
There has been a lot of experimental work done in the
hypersonic regime over the years, but there is still no
evidence of an operational vehicle of that sort existing.

 >The press release reads as if the project prototype has already been
 >proven when the craft hasn't even flown under its own power. 

That is because the design was "proven" in a wind tunnel.  

Hunter (hitchb@erinet.com) wrote:


: Dean, stop and think about it for a minute.  There have been aircraft
: capable of a top speed of Mach 5 (X-15) and cruise at Mach 3 (SR-71)
: since the sixties.  Do you really think it's taken this long to come
: up with a *prototype* of a vehicle that can cruise at Mach 5?  

Um, the X-15 could not *cruise* at Mach 5 ;-) 

On Fri, 16 Aug 1996 09:37:23 GMT, dadams@netcom.com (Dean Adams)
wrote:

>Such a vehicle takes both FUNDING (a lot), and a MISSION.
>There has been a lot of experimental work done in the
>hypersonic regime over the years, but there is still no
>evidence of an operational vehicle of that sort existing.

No exidence doesn't mean it doesn't exist.  The F-117 was flying
operationally years before the government acknowledged its existence
to the public.  And like I said before, if the F-117 was flying
secretly years ago, what advanced secret programs are they starting on
now that the old one has been declassified?

And funding is definitely still not a problem for the defense
department.

Hunter
Quake nick - "Grendel"

"My time is spilt milk"  -FNM