Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 52

Thread: J Riff Conspiracy Thread

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    168

    J Riff Conspiracy Thread

    ... 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.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    50,536
    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, to see what your obligations are, and if you are still interested, go ahead and post it.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    13,529
    Quote Originally Posted by J Riff View Post
    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.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    168

    proof

    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.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    11,489
    Quote Originally Posted by J Riff View Post
    ...
    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.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    50,536
    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.
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    168
    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.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    The beautiful north coast (Ohio)
    Posts
    50,536
    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,
    At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

    All moderation in purple - The rules

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    1,021
    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.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    11,489
    Quote Originally Posted by J Riff View Post
    ...
    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?

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    16,796
    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.)
    The greatest journey of all time, for all to see
    Every mission makes our dreams reality
    And our destiny begins with you and me
    Through all space and time, the achievement of mankind
    As we sail the sea of discovery, on heroes’ wings we fly!

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Olympia, WA
    Posts
    31,813
    Quote Originally Posted by J Riff View Post
    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.
    _____________________________________________
    Gillian

    "Now everyone was giving her that kind of look UFOlogists get when they suddenly say, 'Hey, if you shade your eyes you can see it is just a flock of geese after all.'"

    "You can't erase icing."

    "I can't believe it doesn't work! I found it on the internet, man!"

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    11,489
    Quote Originally Posted by Gillianren View Post
    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.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    13,529
    Quote Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
    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.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    14,150
    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.
    Rules For Posting To This Board
    All Moderation in Purple

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    11,120
    Quote Originally Posted by J Riff View Post
    ...
    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?
    Measure once, cut twice. Practice makes perfect.

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    15,801
    Enough holes to drive a boxy-jet through. With an untrained pilot.

    This theory won't fly.
    0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 ...
    Skepticism enables us to distinguish fancy from fact, to test our speculations. --Carl Sagan

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    4,472
    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.

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    4,472
    Quote Originally Posted by captain swoop View Post
    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/wikipedi.../53/Mig9-7.jpg

    British De Havilland Vampire operational 1945:

    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...45_NAN1_47.jpg

    And US F-86 Sabre again 1947:

    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...a/F86Sabre.JPG

    Seriously; 'boxy'?
    Last edited by pzkpfw; 2010-May-03 at 10:32 PM. Reason: Image size

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    13,529
    Quote Originally Posted by captain swoop View Post
    ...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.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    13,529
    Quote Originally Posted by Garrison View Post
    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.
    Last edited by R.A.F.; 2010-May-03 at 09:24 PM. Reason: added "very"

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    4,472
    Quote Originally Posted by R.A.F. View Post
    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?

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    1,730
    Quote Originally Posted by J Riff View Post
    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?

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    13,529
    Quote Originally Posted by Garrison View Post
    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.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    11,489
    Quote Originally Posted by captain swoop View Post
    ...
    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.

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Posts
    14,150
    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.
    Rules For Posting To This Board
    All Moderation in Purple

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    4,472
    Quote Originally Posted by captain swoop View Post
    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.

  28. #28
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    The Netherlands
    Posts
    15,682
    Quote Originally Posted by captain swoop View Post
    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]
    ____________
    "Dumb all over, a little ugly on the side." -- Frank Zappa
    "Your right to hold an opinion is not being contested. Your expectation that it be taken seriously is." -- Jason Thompson
    "This is really very simple, but unfortunately it's very complicated." -- publius

    Moderator comments in this color | Get moderator attention using the lower left icon:
    Recommended reading: Forum Rules * Forum FAQs * Conspiracy Theory Advice * Alternate Theory Advocates Advice

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Posts
    13,529
    Quote Originally Posted by Garrison View Post
    ....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.

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    11,489
    Quote Originally Posted by Garrison View Post
    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.

Similar Threads

  1. [J Riff on early spaceflight]
    By J Riff in forum Conspiracy Theories
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 2011-Jun-30, 01:08 PM
  2. I Can't Win Against Conspiracy Theorists, A Moon Landing Thread
    By drh3010 in forum Conspiracy Theories
    Replies: 60
    Last Post: 2007-Nov-01, 01:00 AM
  3. Shuttle conspiracy thread, (not what the title suggests)
    By banquo's_bumble_puppy in forum Off-Topic Babbling
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 2005-Apr-11, 10:03 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •