PDA

View Full Version : J Riff Conspiracy Thread



J Riff
2010-May-02, 05:34 AM
... several times, to post a NASA based 'conspiracy' argument in here.. but protocols are shifty things.
I'm refering to, for example, illegal research that would end up being utilized by NASA or, pre-NASA programs. Or, NASA or pre-NASA space program or air force individuals who may not be what they seem to be. Or -
In other words - stuff that 99 percent of the people working for NASA would never have a clue about.
More of an ethics question really. It could get ugly fast if names were named so we don't go there. I wonder how NASA employees or supporters would react to being asked questions along these lines.

Swift
2010-May-02, 10:23 PM
J Riff,

I'm gathering you are asking permission about posting this conspiracy. It is hard to be sure, since I'm not quite following your description, but it seems to be within the allowed topics of the CT forum. As far as "getting ugly", well, if everyone behaves themselves and stays within the rules, we can keep it "pretty". If not, the moderators will moderate. I would suggest you first review The Advice for Conspiracy Theory Supporters (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/86593-Advice-for-Conspiracy-Theory-Supporters), to see what your obligations are, and if you are still interested, go ahead and post it.

R.A.F.
2010-May-02, 10:41 PM
More of an ethics question really.

I certainly hope it's not more of the "Von Braun is a NAZI" type stuff. That gets boring real quick.


It could get ugly fast if names were named so we don't go there.

Can't tell if it would "get ugly" until we hear just what your claim is...it might require that you "need" to name names in order to prove yourself.


I wonder how NASA employees or supporters would react to being asked questions along these lines.

I don't understand just what you mean here...if you know that people here will get mad over what your claim is, then our "reaction" will be prove it...again if you can't do that without naming names, then it might be best to forget the whole thing.

Just my unsolicited opinion. :)

J Riff
2010-May-03, 12:29 AM
Well... that's the problem - proof is possible in re: most science questions, but not usually possible when dealing with human issues, particularly crime at a high level viz: anything involving Govt. agencies.
It's impossible to start anything like this without full awareness of things like MkUltra. There are so many crimes, I don't even know where to start.
A key to all this is the fact that these alleged crimes are all committed against a handful of people, minimizing the danger of exposure.
The fact that there are many people running around claiming similar crimes against themselves, is quite natural, and part of the built-in defence of such a system. It is also a large source of secondary income, for those who know how to exploit it.
I've already run into the violent response that occurs when one makes noise about these kind of issues. I could tell you in detail about the armed men and women who showed up at my door in this type of situation.
I'm in Canada, mind, a lot less civilized than many might think. In brief - since I don't know where else to start - armed men showed up at my door. They asked me : " Are you the guy who's been talking about ( famous deceased hollywood celebrity ). Nothing else.
Shocked, I managed to say... " well, maybe...I have been writing a book, and - "
They didn't listen to another word. I was handcuffed and taken away, on the spot. I was taken to a psychiatric ward and kept there approximately a week. They showed me films about marijuana but no mention was ever made of WHY I was there !
They forced me to take unknown drugs for a few days, but they kept me awake so they stopped that. Then they gave me a supply of same drugs and turned me loose.
That is the mildest episode I can relate. There have been two much more violent police-based assaults since.
I've never done anything except try and talk about my own life. Did I ever do any work for the space program ? Yes. Is it recognized - no.
Sigh... the CIA and the Mafia don't have chat rooms or message boards. I'm not trying to disparage NASA in any way but I am being psychologically tortured to this day, so I just have to try and talk to whoever I can, and at street-level where I'm forced to live, there isn't much conversation about anything other than how to get through one more day.

JayUtah
2010-May-03, 12:45 AM
...

I'm refering to, for example, illegal research that would end up being utilized by NASA or, pre-NASA programs.

It does indeed sound like you're dancing around the issue of Wernher von Braun's former connections. But that's pure supposition, so I'd urge you to present your discussion anyway.

In other words - stuff that 99 percent of the people working for NASA would never have a clue about.

It's the nature of any large organization that a significant percentage of them won't know details outside their particular area of focus. That's why you have the division of labor.

More of an ethics question really. It could get ugly fast if names were named so we don't go there.

Ugliness doesn't bother me. You either have facts to back up your claims or you don't. What bothers me is the insinuation that you're going to use impending "ugliness" as an excuse not to provide information that your readers can verify.

I wonder how NASA employees or supporters would react to being asked questions along these lines.

I think you'll find few of either group here. I know of only two NASA contractors on this board, and no NASA employees. As for whether the rest of us qualify as "NASA supporters," I don't think so. I am happy to criticize NASA where they screw up, and to praise them where they succeed. It's a fact-based approach. Just because people rise to object certain claims against NASA doesn't mean they support NASA in principle.

Swift
2010-May-03, 01:54 AM
OK everyone, full stop.

This thread is not to debate any particular Conspiracy Theory, either pro or con. This is only for the discussion of the rule change as to what are allowed conspiracies for discussion on BAUT.

J Riff - Our rules are our rules. If you would like to post your Conspiracy Theory, create a new thread and do so. I can't predetermine how much evidence you do or don't have. You can always post it, and if things don't go well, drop it and ask the thread to be closed. But if you don't want to discuss it, that's fine too, but then don't discuss it.

I would rather not close this thread, but if there is anything else that does not relate to the specific topic of this thread, I will.

J Riff
2010-May-03, 07:06 AM
Ok Swift. And thank you Jay, for being logical, that's how I'm trying to proceed. This next bit is just some groundwork.
In the MkUltra or similar programs, REM and other sleep states are, or were, crucial - allowing for a ' Manchurian Candidate ' syndrome, but of course not so dramatic. Rather, each 'victim' simply has a controller.
The controller must be someone that the victim trusts implicitly. Assume the persons Mother.
Now this person, or child, can be made to perform all kinds of activities, which they will not remember.
Certain persons are tailor-made for this. What shall we have them do ?
Assassinate the President in the movies, but in real life - Make a lot of money for someone else.
A large group can in fact leech off one such person, hundreds of people once it gets going.
This was called ' Belgian Disease ' pre-war. Post-war, it was honed to a much more refined state.
A good portion of the 'research' used to achieve this 'improvement' , was carried out by the Nazis, mostly in the death camps.
So that's the basics.

So, we have the space program of the 40s-50s. There are Jets attempting to reach outer space before there were rockets.
The logic went something like this : We have to try and get into space before the Russkies or whoever. But it is extremely dangerous to fly early jets up to 8 - 9 miles. EXTREMELY dangerous. Are we going to risk a full-blown Astronaut or professionally-trained air force/navy pilot on this mission ? Those people cost a million dollars to train, an absolute fortune in those days. No.
Enter the MkUltra victim and his controller.
One could learn to fly an early mig-like boxy jet in about two days. That's what happened.
Pretty simple. Take off and head straight up.
At about 8 miles, guess what happened ? The plane suddenly turned sideways at about 700 mph ( ? ) and the wing came off. Game over.
Nope. The two people fell 8 miles, but both survived, which was very surprising. The cold should have killed them both, but instead, the slight friction from the air, thin as it was, provided barely enough heat to stop instant death. This is what was learned, other than the fact that the jet could not operate at that altitude.
The older person, in fact the controller person in this case, suffered slight brain damage, and fairly severe frostbite. The younger person only sustained frostbite injury.
Some official pilot took full credit for this, and accrued the financial benefits, along with the increased stature, connections, social standing, better breaks all round for his family and children, and their children, to this day. The people who risked their lives were simply sent along to their next 'mission' .

It's very important to understand that this is one incident out of a hundred, the bulk of which would not intersect with the space program in any way. There are three or four more I can dredge up but it isn't the problem. The problem is the proof word.
I suppose I could start gathering thousands of photos, try to get retinal scans done, test DNA in other cases.... but remember I am tailor-made for this. I can't do it even if it were possible. And the people covering it are virtually bulletproof. There's no proof possible without a major involvement by the very people it would hurt the worst. It's set up that way.
Plus, I've been completely, professionally invalidated, before I even knew what was really going on.

If this is allowed to continue, next up is the Monkey who supposedly went into space.

P.S. I invariably feel physically ill after trying to talk about or even post on the net re: any of this.
But feeling a bit sick is minor compared to the anger and trouble that is still creates, every single day.

Swift
2010-May-03, 01:20 PM
J Riff,

Since you didn't follow my suggestion to start your own thread on your conspiracy ideas, I have done it for you. I have moved all your posts and any comments to them to this thread. Please post them here. If you would like a different thread title, let me know and it can be changed.

I hope you have read the Advice for CT supporters I posted a link to in Post # 2. If not, I think you should, since you are now obligated to follow those rules. If you do not wish to, or otherwise fail to, this thread will be closed.

I would also suggest you exactly state what your conspiracy idea is - I did not understand it from your last post.

Thanks,

MAPNUT
2010-May-03, 01:40 PM
JRiff, it sounds like you should get a good lawyer before you claim any specifics. I don't know anything about Canadian law, but I expect it should protect you from being held without charges.

JayUtah
2010-May-03, 04:47 PM
...

And thank you Jay, for being logical, that's how I'm trying to proceed.

You're welcome. I also intend to proceed logically.

In the MkUltra or similar programs...

I'm familiar with MK-ULTRA. What "similar programs" are you referring to? Specially, what program do you allege was responsible for the material you present? Was it MK-ULTRA or some other program?

The problem you're going to have is that MK-ULTRA, being an acknowledged "black op," is fertile ground for conspiracy theories. The admitted existence of the project makes it easy and attractive to attach various claims to it. But the relative lack of accurate and complete records makes it very difficult to refute those claims. Because attaching one's claims to some known-secret organization (e.g., the Freemasons or the CIA) is a common theme in conspiracy theories, you're going to meet immediately with a lot of skepticism.

The controller must be someone that the victim trusts implicitly. Assume the persons Mother.

This is an interesting contradiction to the typical MK-ULTRA reported experience, where subjects were conditioned to trust unrelated people as implicitly as if they had been parents. Do you have any explanation for this departure?

So, we have the space program of the 40s-50s. There are Jets attempting to reach outer space before there were rockets.

Which projects, specifically? Your anecdote sounds as if it were undertaken by trained aerospace experimenters who would know that air-breathing engines cannot get humans to space -- or even close to it. Experiments to get to space were performed by rocket-powered vehicles such as the X-15 and the Mercury-Redstone. High-altitude jet flight was a subject of heavy experimentation, but not with space travel as its goal. High-altitude jet experiments were aimed at raising the effective service ceilings of military aircraft to make them more difficult targets and avoid detection.

The logic went something like this : We have to try and get into space before the Russkies or whoever. But it is extremely dangerous to fly early jets up to 8 - 9 miles. EXTREMELY dangerous. Are we going to risk a full-blown Astronaut or professionally-trained air force/navy pilot on this mission?

Why not? The Air Force, Navy, and civilian sectors routinely employed highly-trained test pilots in flights that were deemed risky. The danger is what attracted so many pilots to flight test occupations, for the chance to set records and to fly the most advanced aircraft. Conversely the experimenters intended to benefit greatly from the on-the-spot observations from the highly-trained pilots, who were also engineers. The aircraft themselves often represented substantial engineering investments whose longevity and survival depended on skillful flying.

One could learn to fly an early mig-like boxy jet in about two days. That's what happened.

Can you be more specific about the aircraft in question? Its manufacturer, model number, any surviving examples?

Pretty simple. Take off and head straight up.

What exact time period are we talking about? Many jets of the 1940s and 1950s could not fly straight up and were actually rather underpowered. Altitude records were set by long, slow climbs and not "hero" ascents. While that become more popular in the 1960s as jet power increased dramatically, this does not seem to be consistent with the time periods you seem to refer to.

At about 8 miles, guess what happened ? The plane suddenly turned sideways at about 700 mph ( ? ) and the wing came off.

The MiG that flew in the 1950s was typically the MiG-15, which had a service ceiling of about 50,000 feet or about 9.5 miles. Which MiG would we be talking about then? When would it have flown?

The two people fell 8 miles, but both survived, which was very surprising.

Please be more specific; did they eject or bail out and descend on parachutes? Or did they free-fall from the accident altitude?

The cold should have killed them both, but instead, the slight friction from the air, thin as it was, provided barely enough heat to stop instant death.

No, sorry, this is not credible.

First, the air temperature up to 40,000 feet MSL is not cold enough to cause "instant death." WWII bomber crews operated for extended missions in open cabins at altitudes up to 35,000 with only supplementary oxygen and normal cold-weather gear such as coats and gloves. While you would succumb to hypothermia in a small number of minutes if you weren't wearing a coat, a free-falling aviator would be in warmer air before this occurred. Further, the MiG cockpits of the time were not pressurized and air crews wore oxygen masks and warm clothing routinely. A MiG flight crew would not have been sent aloft without protective clothing. Hence your falling air crew would have been adequately protected during the fall, or else they would have frozen during the flight itself for lack of protection.

Second, the terminal velocity of a free-falling body at stratosphere altitudes is not fast enough to cause aerodynamic heating in significant amounts. In fact the heat transfer will be decidedly in the other direction -- falling would chill them faster through forced convection.

This is what was learned, other than the fact that the jet could not operate at that altitude.

But jets routinely operated at that altitude and higher in the 1950s, even the stock MiG.

Some official pilot took full credit for this...

I assume this will be your excuse for why we'll find no records of any kind of any mission of this type. Do you know the name of the "official pilot" who took credit for this particular flight? Is he still alive to be questioned about it?

There are three or four more I can dredge up but it isn't the problem. The problem is the proof word.

Indeed. You've provided no verifiable connection to any person, place, or event. All we have is your word that this flight took place and under the circumstances you describe. Unfortunately what little detail you have provided is not very credible. It seems like a story that would fool people who aren't familiar with aircraft or flight test, but doesn't really stand up to scrutiny.

but remember I am tailor-made for this. I can't do it even if it were possible.

So it sounds like we won't be getting any good evidence and it will remain just an entertaining, if implausible story.

And the people covering it are virtually bulletproof. There's no proof possible without a major involvement by the very people it would hurt the worst. It's set up that way.

So why aren't you already dead?

P.S. I invariably feel physically ill after trying to talk about or even post on the net re: any of this.

What does your physician say? And why do you keep doing it, if there's no possible way to provide verifiable proof? Why would you continue to risk embarrassment, ridicule, and physical illness toward a cause you assert is futile?

KaiYeves
2010-May-03, 05:17 PM
I certainly hope it's not more of the "Von Braun is a NAZI" type stuff. That gets boring real quick.
Wouldn't that be "was"? (Because he's dead, I mean.)

Gillianren
2010-May-03, 05:40 PM
Well... that's the problem - proof is possible in re: most science questions, but not usually possible when dealing with human issues, particularly crime at a high level viz: anything involving Govt. agencies.

I'm going to stop you here.

Yes. Proof is impossible. No matter what, it is always possible for something to be wrong. Always. However, what you can do and aren't is provide evidence. This is different. After a large-enough accumulation of evidence, we can operate based on a presumption that something is true. However, there is no reason to do so until that evidence has been brought forward. So far, you have brought forward things which are easily shown to be incorrect and things which, frankly, I don't believe.

JayUtah
2010-May-03, 06:15 PM
So far, you have brought forward things which are easily shown to be incorrect and things which, frankly, I don't believe.

Indeed the story seems to have been concocted from The Manchurian Candidate novel and possibly from hypobaric experiments done infamously under the Nazis in their camps as part of the experiments that allegedly inspired MK-ULTRA.

When considering the authenticity of a story such as this, we first have to see whether there is any identifiable connection to something in the real world: records of the flights, names, dates, and locations. We have to investigate the framework of the story (the alleged secret conditioning projects) to see whether there is a discernible connection or whether the alleged framework is simply a factual backdrop for a fictional story. No connections exist for this story, and the poster has already planted the notion that no such connections can be established. It is, and likely will remain, a "take my word for it" story. The author claims to have been "professionally discredited," which I suppose to mean that if he submits his identity as support for the authority of the story, we'll be unable to find anything about his "true" qualifications that would support the story.

Next we have to see whether the story's detail, color, and allegations are consistent with known states of the art. That is, if a story proposes to take place, for example, at Lawrence Livermore National Lab, and the story contains details of that setting, then we can match the details against what is known to be there. Here the story purports certain aircraft capabilities which we can test against the state of the art. It purports biological effects which we can test against known facts. Stories that fail to connect to the real world in any verifiable way, but which nevertheless are accurate in color and detail, can be considered plausible (if unproven, and perhaps unprovable). However, stories that fail to connect to the real world and fail to exhibit accurate color are simply more likely to be fabricated.

R.A.F.
2010-May-03, 06:34 PM
Do you know the name of the "official pilot" who took credit for this particular flight? Is he still alive to be questioned about it?

I think this is where the "I'm not going to name names" comes into play...if we had the name of the pilot, it wouldn't take much work to determine if his "story" was true or not.

Seems like he had that in mind before his 1st post.


Wouldn't that be was?

Yes...don't know why I phrased it that way.

captain swoop
2010-May-03, 08:35 PM
When the OP says 'early mig-like boxy jet' I think he means early Jets in general.
I can't think of any that were 'boxy. Even the very first operational jets the ME262 and Gloster Meteor' in the 40s were aerodynamic an quite efficintly designed.

Also why would a wing 'break off' just due to it's altitude? Height above the ground in itself wouldn't cause any extra loading on the airframe.

pzkpfw
2010-May-03, 08:37 PM
...
Are we going to risk a full-blown Astronaut or professionally-trained air force/navy pilot on this mission ? Those people cost a million dollars to train, an absolute fortune in those days. No.

Enter the MkUltra victim and his controller.

One could learn to fly an early mig-like boxy jet in about two days. That's what happened.

...

The two people fell 8 miles, but both survived, which was very surprising.

...


If one could learn to fly a jet in about two days, why do all the cloak and dagger stuff? Why not just get some volunteer, for the promise of a nice bonus, and get them to learn to fly the test plane in "two days"?

How much did it cost to train the "controller"?

Was the controller a willing participant in the dangerious mission? (If they were, then why wouldn't it have been possible to find a willing pilot?)

How did sending up both the controller plus the controlee help matters?

01101001
2010-May-03, 08:56 PM
Enough holes to drive a boxy-jet through. With an untrained pilot.

This theory won't fly.

Garrison
2010-May-03, 09:01 PM
So, we have the space program of the 40s-50s. There are Jets attempting to reach outer space before there were rockets.

When exactly was this? The USA was doing tests with V2's immediately after World War II. And if they didn't want to send up trained pilots there they certainly had alternatives:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animals_in_space#1940s

This period of desperation can't really be the post Sputnik or Gagarin period as the USA had rockets and capsules, and would have derived little benefit from the mission you describe. I'm assuming you are referring to the USA based on this comment:


We have to try and get into space before the Russkies or whoever.

And this:


Enter the MkUltra victim and his controller.

Simply put your described mission makes no sense at all.

Garrison
2010-May-03, 09:16 PM
When the OP says 'early mig-like boxy jet' I think he means early Jets in general.
I can't think of any that were 'boxy. Even the very first operational jets the ME262 and Gloster Meteor' in the 40s were aerodynamic an quite efficintly designed.

Also why would a wing 'break off' just due to it's altitude? Height above the ground in itself wouldn't cause any extra loading on the airframe.

I can't think of anything from the period being discussed that would attract such a description. Here's the MiG-9 from 1947:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/53/Mig9-7.jpg

British De Havilland Vampire operational 1945:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9e/DeHavilland_Vampire_HMS_Ocean_Dec1945_NAN1_47.jpg

And US F-86 Sabre again 1947:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3a/F86Sabre.JPG

Seriously; 'boxy'?

R.A.F.
2010-May-03, 09:19 PM
...why would a wing 'break off' just due to it's altitude? Height above the ground in itself wouldn't cause any extra loading on the airframe.

You are correct, altitude in and of itself would not cause a wing to break off. Now if you were flying hypersonic and were to deviate from course (as happened to Mike Adams, in X-15 #3), then yes, you could disintegrate you aircraft.

R.A.F.
2010-May-03, 09:23 PM
And US F-86 Sabre again 1947...

That is a very pretty aircraft.


Seriously; 'boxy'?

No...not really...sleek is the word that comes to mind. :)

Garrison
2010-May-03, 09:34 PM
That is a very pretty aircraft.



No...not really...sleek is the word that comes to mind. :)

Yes indeed. I have heard it claimed it went through Mach-1 before the X-1 on a test flight but the instruments weren't all wired up so they couldn't prove it, though that might just be somebody bragging. :) But seriously though how can we seriously consider the elaborate 'space race' conspiracy theory of someone like J Riff who doesn't appear to know anything about the aircraft of the period or the early high altitude/space rockets?

Jason Thompson
2010-May-03, 09:45 PM
The logic went something like this : We have to try and get into space before the Russkies or whoever. But it is extremely dangerous to fly early jets up to 8 - 9 miles. EXTREMELY dangerous. Are we going to risk a full-blown Astronaut or professionally-trained air force/navy pilot on this mission ? Those people cost a million dollars to train, an absolute fortune in those days. No.

I fail to see any logic in that statement at all. It is extremely dangerous to put a man in any untried aircraft because, as they said on Mythbusters, taking off is optional but landing is mandatory. Once that plane goes up it IS coming back down at some point, and until you get it up you don't know for sure if it's going to come down in a controlled way or so hard there's not much of your pilot left. The risk of losing a test pilot is the same whether he's trying to reach space, reach Mach 1, reach Mach 3, or reach 50,000 feet. What is so uniquely dangerous about your proposed tests that they require someone other than the best trained and qualified pilots and engineers?

People voluntarily get into aircraft, spacecraft and the like all the time, and the danger is always there. Some people even specifically volunteer for posts that require them to land high performance jets on a far-too-small platform floating in the sea in adverse weather conditions, trusting their lives to a rope system that grabs their plane before it careens off the other end of the deck into the sea! To me that seems little short of outright insanity, but people do it because they want to. Many many test pilots have been lost in accidents. I don't see the logic that says some test flights are too dangerous for someone who has been specifically trained to carry out test flights, and who spent a lot of time and effort studying the design and construction of the vehicle they were testing so they knew it inside out and actually want to fly the things?

Your scenario seems to require a world where pilots and astronaust are trained up and used like resources, and who have no human drive of any kind. They are people, not lab rats. Why are the powers that be wasting time and effort training them as test pilots if they're not going to use them as test pilots?

R.A.F.
2010-May-03, 09:49 PM
I have heard it claimed it went through Mach-1 before the X-1 on a test flight but the instruments weren't all wired up so they couldn't prove it, though that might just be somebody bragging. :)

Actually. there are those who claim that while in a steep dive in propeller aircraft that they passed through the level of turbulence and then "calm" associated with crossing the "sound barrier". I would not dismiss that claim "out of hand"...but that is not what we are talking about here...I think.


But seriously though how can we seriously consider the elaborate 'space race' conspiracy theory of someone like J Riff who doesn't appear to know anything about the aircraft of the period or the early high altitude/space rockets?


That does make it very unlikely.

JayUtah
2010-May-03, 09:54 PM
...

When the OP says 'early mig-like boxy jet' I think he means early Jets in general.

He may, which is why I asked him to clarify the exact aircraft type. The MiG-15 and the F-86 were both operational in the late 1940s through the 1960s and had service ceilings around 50,000 feet. The service ceiling is the altitude at which it can sustain operational flight with maneuvering capability. The maximum ceiling could often be considerably higher, and is the altitude at which stable flight control remains possible for straight and level flight. (I.e., not losing wings.)

Also why would a wing 'break off' just due to it's altitude? Height above the ground in itself wouldn't cause any extra loading on the airframe.

Indeed. Wing separation occurs most frequently in high-g pitch maneuvers. Basically you need a significant angle of attack (positive or negative) at a significant airspeed, which isn't going to come from a ballistic ascent or from simple altitude. As you've guessed, the alleged story doesn't sound very plausible on several counts to people who are familiar with airplanes. It sounds very made up.

captain swoop
2010-May-03, 10:02 PM
He may, which is why I asked him to clarify the exact aircraft type.

He says "We have to try and get into space before the Russkies or whoever"

Which leads me to think he doesn't mean 'actual' Migs but early first and maybe second generation jets.

Garrison
2010-May-03, 10:22 PM
He says "We have to try and get into space before the Russkies or whoever"

Which leads me to think he doesn't mean 'actual' Migs but early first and maybe second generation jets.

Perhaps he does but I think the pictures and the other references above make it clear J Riff's description of them as 'boxy' suggests he doesn't know a lot about those early jets. Combined with this:

There are Jets attempting to reach outer space before there were rockets
It doesn't inspire a lot of confidence in his ideas.

slang
2010-May-03, 10:22 PM
Also why would a wing 'break off' just due to it's altitude? Height above the ground in itself wouldn't cause any extra loading on the airframe.

Right. Obviously it's because the lower air density cannot support the weight of the wing. Thus it breaks off.[/CT LOGIC]

R.A.F.
2010-May-03, 11:05 PM
....I think the pictures and the other references above make it clear J Riff's description of them as 'boxy' suggests he doesn't know a lot about those early jets.

It does increase the "difficulty" of taking him seriously.

JayUtah
2010-May-04, 12:18 AM
Perhaps he does but I think the pictures and the other references above make it clear J Riff's description of them as 'boxy' suggests he doesn't know a lot about those early jets.

Keep in mind that J Riff has yet to specify what aircraft type he means. Until he is more specific in his claims, we're punching straw men.

Jim
2010-May-04, 12:51 AM
... The controller must be someone that the victim trusts implicitly. Assume the persons Mother.
Now this person, or child, can be made to perform all kinds of activities, which they will not remember. ...

Whoa! Hold on. Full stop here.

You want to get someone (the "victim") to do something super-secret and super-dangerous, so you have that person controlled by... Mom?

And just how do you get Mom to betray her child? Have her Mom control her?

The word "preposterous" springs to mind.

JayUtah
2010-May-04, 01:06 AM
How did sending up both the controller plus the controlee help matters?

Yeah, that's a puzzler. The typical Manchurian Candidate scenario gives the controller an alibi. The whole point of the proposition is that the operative acts alone and then has no memory of his actions, and the controller has an alibi. Ideally the controller would be seen conspicuously kicking back a few at Pancho's while this alleged flight took place. What's the point of sending up a stooge pilot with no memory of his suicide mission, if you also send up a skilled, fully cogent controller who might have second thoughts? If you fully trust the controller to keep his mouth shut, then just teach the controller to fly the plane.

Donnie B.
2010-May-04, 01:13 AM
Perhaps "boxy" refers to the snub-nosed appearance of early jets that had the engine intake at the front of the fuselage, as opposed to later designs with needle noses.

Again, perhaps "assume the person's Mother" does not mean literally Mom, but rather someone who is as trusted as a mother -- more like Tonto to the Lone Ranger.

JayUtah
2010-May-04, 01:36 AM
And just how do you get Mom to betray her child? Have her Mom control her?

The sleeper agent in The Manchurian Candidate was controlled by his mother, but the author successfully characterizes the mother as someone who would do just that. She's not the typical mother, nor is hers a typical family. Further, the operative in the novel isn't sent on suicide missions. It all makes sense in the narrow context of the novel, but it doesn't work as a general spy meme.

CJSF
2010-May-04, 04:57 AM
(sighing morosely) I am going to have to look up this whole Manchurian Candidate thingy if I am going to understand any of this, aren't I?

CJSF

Edited after looking it up:
OK, great. It STILL makes no sense.

Gillianren
2010-May-04, 06:35 AM
I'll tell you what doesn't make sense--not having heard of The Manchurian Candidate! (No, I haven't seen it yet. I'm almost through "K," though.) And practically anything which takes it seriously as possible, of course.

captain swoop
2010-May-04, 06:56 AM
It has been filmed twice, the first one with Frank Sinatra is by far the best.

CJSF
2010-May-04, 10:17 AM
I'd heard of it, just never really paid attention to what it was about.

CJSF

JonClarke
2010-May-04, 11:53 AM
Of course we should note that propeller-driven, piston-engined aircraft were reaching altitudes well above 8 miles in the 1930s, for example the Vikers Vespa, Bristol 138 and Caproni 161.

By the late 1950s ground-based jet aircraft were pushing towards 16 miles. Air-launched rocket powqered aircraft were well past that by the early 50s

JonClarke
2010-May-04, 12:08 PM
Perhaps "boxy" refers to the snub-nosed appearance of early jets that had the engine intake at the front of the fuselage, as opposed to later designs with needle noses.

Except of course most jet fighters of the 40s didn't, eg, Me 262, He 162, Meteor, Vampire, Attacker, Shooting Star, Banshee, Panther, Phantom, and S-21R. Only the Sabre, Thunderjet, MiG 9 and Mig 15 had a nose mounted intake.

Tedward
2010-May-04, 04:36 PM
With reference to plonking Joe Bloggs itto a plane after showing them which way is up. I remember reading somewhere on the web about a Lightning pilot and a height attempt. Now what the height was does not matter I think but the skill of the pilot required to keep it close to the edge of its envelope. And to get it back when it goes outside this.

Garrison
2010-May-04, 06:44 PM
Except of course most jet fighters of the 40s didn't, eg, Me 262, He 162, Meteor, Vampire, Attacker, Shooting Star, Banshee, Panther, Phantom, and S-21R. Only the Sabre, Thunderjet, MiG 9 and Mig 15 had a nose mounted intake.

The similarities of the latter having a lot to do with being based on the same German data. I agree with what JayUtah said earlier until we know what aircraft J Riff is talking about it's all academic, he might call something boxy and mean something different than what we have been talking about. I think the other big question is; what's the time frame for this mission? When might the USA have been desperate enough to conduct such a flight but not had a superior flight option, i.e. X-15, Mercury, either operational or imminent?

JonClarke
2010-May-04, 10:09 PM
The similarities of the latter having a lot to do with being based on the same German data. I agree with what JayUtah said earlier until we know what aircraft J Riff is talking about it's all academic, he might call something boxy and mean something different than what we have been talking about. I think the other big question is; what's the time frame for this mission? When might the USA have been desperate enough to conduct such a flight but not had a superior flight option, i.e. X-15, Mercury, either operational or imminent?

I am not sure what "desperate enough" might mean in this context. High speed flight was already priority with various supersonic projects happening. The sound barrier was much more challenging than mere high altitude, and a number of test aircraft did break up approaching it.

My understanding is that the role of German data in the design of the MiG 15 has been over emphasised (usual Russophobic prejudices) and applied only to wind tunnel work on the highly swept wing. It is also my understanding that the reason so few early jets had a nose intake, despite this being logical for a single-engined plane, was the problem of airflow stability in long intakes and exhausts. Split intakes (e.g. Shooting star) high tails (MiG 9), twin tails (Vampire), two engines (Meteor) and split exhausts (Seahawk) were ways of working round this problem. Of course with the Thunderjet, MiG 15, Ouragan, etc. the problem was solved.

pvicente
2010-May-05, 08:17 AM
Ok Swift. And thank you Jay, for being logical, that's how I'm trying to proceed. This next bit is just some groundwork.
In the MkUltra or similar programs, REM and other sleep states are, or were, crucial - allowing for a ' Manchurian Candidate ' syndrome, but of course not so dramatic. Rather, each 'victim' simply has a controller.
The controller must be someone that the victim trusts implicitly. Assume the persons Mother.
Now this person, or child, can be made to perform all kinds of activities, which they will not remember.
Certain persons are tailor-made for this. What shall we have them do ?
Assassinate the President in the movies, but in real life - Make a lot of money for someone else.
A large group can in fact leech off one such person, hundreds of people once it gets going.
This was called ' Belgian Disease ' pre-war. Post-war, it was honed to a much more refined state.
A good portion of the 'research' used to achieve this 'improvement' , was carried out by the Nazis, mostly in the death camps.
So that's the basics.

So, we have the space program of the 40s-50s. There are Jets attempting to reach outer space before there were rockets.
The logic went something like this : We have to try and get into space before the Russkies or whoever. But it is extremely dangerous to fly early jets up to 8 - 9 miles. EXTREMELY dangerous. Are we going to risk a full-blown Astronaut or professionally-trained air force/navy pilot on this mission ? Those people cost a million dollars to train, an absolute fortune in those days. No.
Enter the MkUltra victim and his controller.
One could learn to fly an early mig-like boxy jet in about two days. That's what happened.
Pretty simple. Take off and head straight up.
At about 8 miles, guess what happened ? The plane suddenly turned sideways at about 700 mph ( ? ) and the wing came off. Game over.
Nope. The two people fell 8 miles, but both survived, which was very surprising. The cold should have killed them both, but instead, the slight friction from the air, thin as it was, provided barely enough heat to stop instant death. This is what was learned, other than the fact that the jet could not operate at that altitude.
The older person, in fact the controller person in this case, suffered slight brain damage, and fairly severe frostbite. The younger person only sustained frostbite injury.
Some official pilot took full credit for this, and accrued the financial benefits, along with the increased stature, connections, social standing, better breaks all round for his family and children, and their children, to this day. The people who risked their lives were simply sent along to their next 'mission' .

It's very important to understand that this is one incident out of a hundred, the bulk of which would not intersect with the space program in any way. There are three or four more I can dredge up but it isn't the problem. The problem is the proof word.
I suppose I could start gathering thousands of photos, try to get retinal scans done, test DNA in other cases.... but remember I am tailor-made for this. I can't do it even if it were possible. And the people covering it are virtually bulletproof. There's no proof possible without a major involvement by the very people it would hurt the worst. It's set up that way.
Plus, I've been completely, professionally invalidated, before I even knew what was really going on.

If this is allowed to continue, next up is the Monkey who supposedly went into space.

P.S. I invariably feel physically ill after trying to talk about or even post on the net re: any of this.
But feeling a bit sick is minor compared to the anger and trouble that is still creates, every single day.

Ok, that's a nice story, but one that's hard to swallow with many strange details already mentioned by the other members.

Why do you believe in it? What makes it more credible than the average made-up tale flying around the internet?

If the plane was so easy to fly and you don't want to send a pilot (but why not? You have plenty of those coming out of training every year), why not call for volunteers from other branches and send a common soldier or sailor?

Why risk a secret agent trained and groomed by a top secret program, why would he be cheaper than your average pilot?

R.A.F.
2010-May-05, 02:59 PM
So is J Riff going to return to his own thread?

captain swoop
2010-May-05, 03:10 PM
Give him chance

R.A.F.
2010-May-05, 03:15 PM
I'm just curious what type of aircraft he considers "boxy".

JayUtah
2010-May-05, 08:11 PM
...

Why do you believe in it? What makes it more credible than the average made-up tale flying around the internet?

When I re-read his post #4 (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php/103666-J-Riff-Conspiracy-Thread?p=1726081#post1726081) in this thread, I come away with the impression that he intends this story to be a firsthand account. "I've never done anything except try and talk about my own life. Did I ever do any work for the space program ? Yes. Is it recognized - no." He also says he could name names if he wanted to, but that if he did so it would "get ugly fast" so we're not going to "go there."

So if that suspicion is confirmed then it won't be so much a matter of his explaining why he believes in it, but of his having to defend a "firsthand" story that's so blatantly full of factual holes. After all, gullibility is reasonably forgivable. If it were just some story gleaned off the web, J Riff can see how a critical analysis handles it and move on. But dishonesty is less forgivable; alleging a firsthand story as true when it suffers so greatly from want of correctness puts one in a position that's difficult to defend.

If the plane was so easy to fly...

I'll punch the straw man again. Yes, we're waiting for J Riff to specify the aircraft type involved. But we can continue to eke reliable meaning out of what's already been posted.

Whether it's "boxy" is a matter of opinion that frankly doesn't interest me. When we know the aircraft type we can debate idly whether, in subjective judgment, it's "boxy."

It's described as an "early jet" that's "MiG-like." That narrows it down to certain design families, if not to some specific design. That it's allegedly easy to learn to fly "one of those" (emphasis added) suggests that it's a stock design, not an advanced prototype.

I still struggle with the notion that any such airframe would contribute materially to some sort of pre-rocket "space program" in terms of extreme altitudes. The implied nature of the test suggests a custom high-performance airframe and powerplant.

...why not call for volunteers from other branches and send a common soldier or sailor?

Yes that premise still bothers me. Test pilots are drawn from military pilots, preferably those with combat experience. The whole point of military aviation is to train your pilots to a high degree, then send them out to get shot at. And while training a pilot may cost "a million dollars," the plane itself costs 2-3 million dollars (in about 1960 dollars). So the pilot is not necessarily some extremely rare commodity that must be protected at great effort. Test pilots have more experience and skill than their peers, but not necessarily more training and hence not necessarily more invested expense.

Moreover there was a lot of competition to get into test pilot programs. It's not like you're going to run out of candidates. The notion that some mission had to be flow by untrained, inexperienced pilots in order to save the "good" ones for other missions just doesn't fit the facts.

J Riff
2010-May-06, 06:56 AM
I can't even read one word of this thread, I'm sorry I might have to have to withdraw after this, too tense.
I 'woke up ' to all this in 1998 approx. At that time it was Serial Killers like Green River, Zodiac, a couple others... . altho I had already made some small noise about a dead rock star.
Then came heavy-duty hollywood crap, then horrifying family problems, as i appealed to them for help. I had forgotten about my mom, and was immediately attacked, using the police, as I described. Since, I've twice been further set up in the traditional fashion.
Big deal. Decades ago - Mr. C was thrown out the window, dead. So was Miss A. -maimed, because she had snapped and thrown the kid out a window - eye injury . Mr. G was shot in the back, dead, then my head was seriously dented - and never even taken to hospital. I 'fell off my bike ' according to mom. Dozens more incidents along these lines.
Mom is controller - perfect, optimum for the role. They signed for this..... in blood believe it or not, the idiots. Yet there's all this high-tech lab equipment around. Is this the mafia or the cia/govt ? Beats me, I think they traded back and forth often.
So I was insanely 'famous' whatever that is, and then I was removed and sat on. Since about ... 1964without ever realizing what was up. Perfect, tailor-made for it. I can explain that - it's not part of ultra. Where I was, it was much more violent than any controlled lab situation, it was full-on death, bang. Amazing amounts of blood, thrashing, executions. Not in America. All very numb like a concentration camp gets. One minute talking to someone, next minute into a room to be gassed or experimented on or worse.
Made a conscious decision to forget it all...around 5-6 ? No idea. DID forget it all. Was in the USA and OK > Forgot it all. Then again, and again, with expert help, made to forget names, places and everything else. Remember being 'conditioned' and them telling me over and over that no matter what happened I could not hurt H, I could not hit her, or attack her in any way.
Then they make money or just use you however they can. Handy. Writer, musician, whatever you like. Movie stunts. Pornography. Beautiful kidnapped white baby for sale. Tons, oceans more but that's enough.
This is fake - that's fake - but inside the game or play or whatever life actually is -things happen and they are covered. People are chosen to be sacrificed.
So when you see some guy going down the street yelling and breaking things like a lunatic, screaming involuntarily like he's being tortured, well maybe he is, that's what happened to me.
The space program is a light-hearted romp, I don't know what else to say, I can't do this, it makes me hyper-tense and sick to my stomach, because I've already written volumes about it and only get in worse trouble each time.

captain swoop
2010-May-06, 07:19 AM
OK do I take it from this post you aren't answering questions or defending your original post?

gwiz
2010-May-06, 08:44 AM
Test pilots have more experience and skill than their peers, but not necessarily more training and hence not necessarily more invested expense.
I'd take issue with you there, Jay. A test pilot does need training because test flying requires greater engineering knowledge than a pilot normally has. There are thus schools to teach test flying. In the UK it's the Empire Test Pilots School which used to be based across the airfield from where I worked. I believe there are several schools in the US, including the USAF one at Edwards AFB and the USNavy one at Pax River.

Swift
2010-May-06, 12:55 PM
I have closed this thread (a consensus among multiple moderators).

J Riff, if at some point in the future you are prepared to fully discuss the space related conspiracy, please Report my Post and we will consider reopening it. I think much of the rest of your concerns are beyond the scope of BAUT.