Penniston's sketch & F117-A stealth fighter

[stephan]

I've noticed btw that there's some similarity between the sketch J. Penniston made and the F117 A stealth fighter. Wikipedia says that the first prototype was produced back in 1977:

In 1977 Lockheed produced two 60% scale models under the Have Blue contract.

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_F-117_Nighthawk

60 % scale model ... that would almost fit the dimension of the craft you saw, sir. Could it have been such a prototype ? I mean that won't allow for certain details though like the strange symbols and the enormous speed but perhaps there is some connection and I'm not talking about back-engineering ET space-craft here.

the two ''crafts'':








first pic taken from Ian's site. 2nd link from Wiki.

color (black), shape (triangular), three landing foots (possibly equi-distant), reduced 60 % version: almost same size ... what do you think, Jim ?

edit: Larry Warren also mentions the F117 A in his book where he says that had seen a patch on a pilot's flight suit looking like the shape of the Nighthawk. Images can be seen on page 321 of his book Left At East Gate.

[Admin]

Just put this into another thread for you, Stephan. The BBC article/30th anniversary meeting thread is moving quite fast, I would like it to stay on topic.

I can see the similarites. The F-117's exterior coating is radar absorbent - black and smooth. Its landing gear even consists of three legs. There are of course a lot of problems with this theory, but some parts do fit.

Did the F-117 have a little brother? Perhaps one without windows, or visible 'wings'? Would a test version of this aircraft have lights so that it could be seen by its testers?

[stephan]

hey Admin, that's very nice of you. I should have thought of that before posting

I see at least three possibilities here:

a) it was not related to the F117A, i.e. just a coincidental similarity
b) it was related but the F117A or another version of it is capable of much more than is known

or c) and that may sound really far-fetched: the shape of the F117A was copied from the UFO to allow such an interpretation and to prevent people from finding out about ET

I hope Jim will check this and let us know what he thinks about it. I've seen that the topic has been mentioned before but I'm not sure if he has already said something in regard to it.

[Daniel]

Hello Stephan if you haven't read it you might be interested in The Hunt for Zero Point:Inside the Classified World of Antigravity Technology written by Nick Cook of Janes Defence Weekly. I found it very interesting to read.

Normally I tend to lean towards the idea of possible military black projects being tested when looking at UFO stories, but to me this case is different.

[Frank]

I think it's not so much the appearance of the craft that makes this case a classic UFO case. It's the way it took off.

No sound, no heavy impact on its surroundings, yet gone in the blink of an eye. (Note that Adrian Bustinza witnessed a similar take-off on the third night.)

To my knowledge there are two occasions in which the acceleration performance of UFO's have been analysed:
- Paul Hill's own sightings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_R._Hill#Hill.27s_second_UFO_sighting)
- An analysis by Dr Bruce Maccabee (http://brumac.8k.com/Acceleration/ACCELERATION.htm)

Both come to the same order of magnitude: 100 g's (!). This is a lot faster than the eye can follow (if you watch something accelerate unexpectantly at 10 g's or more you already are not able to follow it).

Our current propulsion systems (including that of the F117) are all based on the same principle: You throw something out in one direction (hot exhaust gases for instance) and your craft travels in the other direction. If you want to accelerate with 100 g's using that principle there would be no Rendlesham Forest left...

But if you would be able to use another principle, one that is out of reach for our current understanding of physics, you could be in business. A candidate for this principle would be a local distortion of space/time in the near vicinity of the craft. This would make the craft "fall" in any direction you would like, and because the craft is "falling" you would not even feel acceleration forces. Such a local space/time distortion is more or less the same as applying an "anti-gravity field" (since gravity can be modeled as distortion of space/time).

(A nice analogy is the local air pressure distortion we apply around the wings of a plane to make it fly. To someone who is unfamiliar with this principle it is hard to understand how such an enormous mass can be lifted without applying an enormous amount of thrust. But is does not primarily fly due to thrust but due to a local difference in air pressure in the vicinity of the wings.)

So I don't think it was a man-made experimental craft. Not because of its appearance but because of the way it took off.

[stephan]

yep, I agree with you guys (see what I wrote above). According to Jim's description it couldn't have been a conventional craft.

There's one other thing which grabbed my attention but which I first couldn't explain because I did not look long enough at the two sketches, i.e. the ones made my Jim and those from Wiki:

both show the same order of views: on the left we have ''top view'', on the right we have front and side view. Is that the way in which aircraft design plans are always made ? Or did Wiki perhaps borrow that one from the Rendlesham case well, probably it's just another coincidence, eh

@ dan92

thanks for the book recommendation. In fact I've participated once in a competition to find a method to produce anti-gravity. I could have won 1 million Euros. Well, my experiment which had to do with superfluidity was examined and a few days later I got a letter from the committee that all the elements of my experiment were well understood and that it would not work. Damn I thought, what could I have done with that money

[Frank]

In fact I've participated once in a competition to find a method to produce anti-gravity. I could have won 1 million Euros.

Interesting! Maybe you can tell a little bit more about it? I only know of a NASA project that speculated on possibilities for faster than light travel.

By the way, I forgot to mention that Paul Hill's sighting (with 100 g's) was in 1962. So if it is man-made technology he witnessed, someone has been sitting on it for at least 50 years (and missed one million Euro's

[stephan]

well, I don't want to go into specifics (they said it doesn't work anyway and I thought they are right after I read their explanation). It had to do with superfluidity, light and a hypothetical new form of energy (gravitational). What initiated my ''quest'' for antigravity was btw the Rendlesham craft J.P. had seen. Later I found out that there was already a theory around incorporating - guess what ! - superfluidity. But it was based on a totally different approach (hypothetical craft called TR3 b). I have discarded the idea long ago.

[Deep Purple]

This something I have had said for a long time that the RFI is connected to the F117a--- but on many occassions got shot down in flames.
Stephan try and get hold of a copy of Skunk Works by Ben Riche its a great read by the head of the "Skunk Works" detailing the birth of the F117a--- its a great read I think you would love it
The Nick cook book on antigravity is also a great read.

I personally still beleive the RFI was staged to mark the entrance of the F117a into europe during the 80s, but I konw others dont beleive this and I accept I may be totally wrong and others right

[stephan]

This something I have had said for a long time that the RFI is connected to the F117a--- but on many occassions got shot down in flames.
Stephan try and get hold of a copy of Skunk Works by Ben Riche its a great read by the head of the "Skunk Works" detailing the birth of the F117a--- its a great read I think you would love it
The Nick cook book on antigravity is also a great read.

I personally still beleive the RFI was staged to mark the entrance of the F117a into europe during the 80s, but I konw others dont beleive this and I accept I may be totally wrong and others right

thanks for the book recommendations, by now I've been recommended to read at least 4 or 5 books within the last two weeks ... but I'm still not finished with LAEG - soon will be though!

that thought Deep Purple also crossed my mind. But I take the words of the witnesses for granted. This is a precondition for my ''research''. It's not a question of belief but rather a set of parameters (= statements by the witnesses) on which my assumptions are (or should be) based. Hence I asked Jim what he thinks about it. If he tells me ''it wasn't the F117A or something thelike'' I have to think of something else. But as long as there's no answer or as long as there is an answer but I haven't found it yet I do speculate, just like you do So up to now my set of parameters may be incomplete - but I'm working on it.

My approach is that I try to piece the puzzle together and look if the pieces (witness statements) fit instead of creating/ adapting/ adding pieces respectively ignoring pieces. Some pieces may be missing though

[stephan]

now this is a bit funny. I was just checking the website twinbases.org.uk for Rendlesham related issues and stumbled upon this picture:



source: http://twinbases.org.uk/ufo/pressrelease3rdkind.htm

when you move over the picture (in the article) it says ''Alien craft ?''

possibly even more remarkable this comment by Gordon Williams:

'Georgina has written the definitive work on this adventure near Rendlesham Forest. While twenty years have passed, she brings new light to this story that just won't go away.' Major General Gordon E Williams USAF (Retired)

keeping in mind that General Williams supposedly never had any direct involvement in the incident and that quote

Bruni has presented vital evidence to support that the case was a genuine UFO encounter

that's quite a statement by Williams, isn't it ?

[Zodian]

Found these pictures whilst browsing. If one were to come across this in the middle of a forest, at night, one could well be excused for thinking it was something 'other-worldly' !

http://www.rob.com/pic/oops-f117/f_117_nn7.jpg

http://www.rob.com/pic/oops-f117/f117wreck11.jpg

[stephan]

yep, in 1999 the Serbian air defense downed one of these aircrafts.

and if you look at this picture:

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/f ... 000015.jpg

you'll agree that it looks quite futuristic, doesn't it ? More photos: http://www.fas.org/programs/ssp/man/usw ... f117a.html

[Zodian]

It looks very futuristic. Imagine how it would have looked 30 years ago to a bunch of USAF service men, still full of the festive spirit, stumbling about in a forest at daft o'clock in the morning and probably with its missile counter-measures malfunctioning!!

Zodian.

[stephan]

absolutely. Although this scenario would be quite imaginable there's a little prob. There would be no reason for the cover-up still to go on. The F117 is well known in the public since the 1st Iraq war. It's the same with the Roswell incident and project Mogul.

Perhaps we should not discard the possibility - even though it sounds far-fetched - that the similarities appeared afterwards, i.e. that certain black projects were adapted to the UFO sightings (I'm not saying ''back-engineered'' on purpose) so people would later interpret the UFOs as black projects. Just keep in mind:

the shape of the F 117 A requires electronic stabilization. Without it the pilot would the unable to control the machine:

The single-seat Nighthawk is powered by two non-afterburning General Electric F404 turbofan engines, and has quadruple-redundant fly-by-wire flight controls.

source

one may argue that the shape contributes to the stealth characteristics but IMO this advantage does not outweigh its disadvantages. Same with the B-2's flying wing design which corresponds with Kenneth Arnold's description of UFOs.

Thus, there may be a cover-up still be going but it's not because of the aircrafts which are not secret anymore by now but because of the true nature of UFOs, i.e. that they are extraterrestrial in origin and that they seem to interfere with nuclear weapons. And in this case it would totally make sense that the cover-up is still ongoing.

Perhaps the reason why Jim has not replied so far to this issue/ thread is because he sees the similarities but fears that it could be difficult to explain why it was NOT the F117 A. Of course it could also be that he has done so before and just does not want to repeat himself

[stephan]

the recent discussion in another thread about possible EM mind distortion and the videos posted by AdrianF which I repost here makes me once again considering the possibility of a crashed F117-A prototype aircraft.

Vids about mind manipulation with RF weapons:

What I could imagine now is this. John, although you said it wasn't the F117-A, what if it was a smaller (crashed ?) prototype of it and those mind distortion devices which are mentioned in the CNN report caused you and Jim to think it was something else ? Maybe the ''noise'' produced by the devices distorted your view to an extent at which you were unable to determine size and shape of the object. The fast movements of the lights in the sky might have been caused by those directed RF energy weapons.

Larry also says that the object he saw was hard to look at directly. This also very much sounds like a distorted view. And he also mentions the F117A in his book.

Although I still lean more towards the ET explanation this idea of a crashed prototype aircraft (presumably the F117-A) which was obfuscated to those who witnessed it by the means of RF technology can be short-listed imo. While in the meantime the Nighthawk has been disclosed the RF technology certainly would still need to be kept secret.

now I've digged a bit and found a list of non-combat crashes of the Nighthawk:

Lockheed F-117A Night Hawk crashes:

Aircraft number 80-0785 was ready for his first flight on April 20,1982 unbeknownst to anyone, the fly-by-wire system had been hooked up incorrectly (pitch was yaw and visa versa) and the plane crashed.

On July 11,1986, Major Ross E.Mulhare (aircraft number 80-0792) flew into a mountain near Bakersfield, California the cause of the crash has never been officially revealed, but fatigue and disorientation during night flying has been identified as a probable cause. Major Ross E.Mulhare died in the crash.

On October 14,1987 Major Michael C Stewart crashed (F-117A number 85-0815) in the Nellis range just east of Tonopah, Nevada, disorientation en fatigue are the problem of these crashes. Major Michael C Stewart died in the crash.

F-117A 82-0801 crashed August 4, 1992 near La Luz, New Mexico, pilot ejected safely.

An Air Force F-117A Nighthawk (86-0822) from the 49th Fighter Wing, Holloman AFB, N.M., crashed 7 miles south of Zuni, New Mexico, May 10, 1995. The pilot, Capt. Kenneth W. Levens, 9th Fighter Squadron, was killed in the crash. The stealth was on a training mission when the accident occurred.

81-10793 an Air Force F-117A Nighthawk crashed September 14, 1997 while performing a fly-by demonstration for an airshow at Martin State Airport, 12 miles northeast of Baltimore. The pilot, Maj. Bryan Knight, safely ejected. He suffered minor injuries. Four people on the ground were injured and 10 families displaced by the crash, which caused extensive fire damage to several homes and vehicles. There were no fatalities or serious injuries.

F-117A (82-0806/HO) was shot down (March 27, 1999) by a SA-6 missile in Serbian near by Budjanovci. The pilot was ejected safely, a Combat Search and Rescue-team of the USAF brought the pilot back by his squadron.

source: http://www.militaryaviation.eu/fighter/ ... /F-117.htm

This list shows that crashes of this aircraft do occur and the first official crash was back in 1982. So if the military tested a prototype on the Bentwaters/ Woodbridge bases back in 1980 a crash (or even several crashes ?) may have occured there. Remember Larry mentions that he saw a pilot with a F117A-like patch on the base.

here's some footage of the 1997 crash:

[puddlepirate]

There was no need to wait for F-117A - the two 60% sized Have Blue prototypes crashed in the Nevada desert with the wreckage of both aircraft being buried there (allegedly). However, the concept was proven and an order was placed on Lockheed Martin 'skunk works' around mid 1978 to produce a number of development aircraft designated Senior Trend, with an 18 mth lead time for delivery. These were development aircraft, not prototypes and eventually became the very first production F-117A to come into service. 18 mths from mid '78 makes it Dec 80. The key thing about Senior Trend is that these aircraft had detachable wings to enable them to fit inside a C-5. They only ever flew at night and were transported to their operational areas by the C-5. This project was so highly classified that nobody who was not directly involved with the project was even allowed to set eyes on the aircraft. The F-117A was a bomber but given a fighter prefix because the USAF wanted to attract the best pilots. The best pilots want to fly fighters, not bombers - hence the F designator instead of B.

I am not absolutely sure but I understand the most advanced radars at that time were in the UK, therefore anyone developing a stealth aircraft would want to test it against the most advanced radars. Thus it is entirely possible that one of the Senior Trend aircraft was brought to somewhere like Macrahanish to fly at night, possibly on probably the quietest night of the year, against the most advanced radars. Those might have existed at RAF Bawdsey - or nearby. If this were so - and this is only an IF - and the aircraft developed a fault (it was inherently unstable in all three planes of pitch, roll and yaw so had to be flown by computer - with quadruple redundancy) and for whatever reason came down in the forest, then almost certainly a specialist recovery team would have been flown in. Was that the reason for the arrival of the C-5?

Because the project was so highly classified nobody would have been told what it was and the extraordinary shape would almost certainly have caused consternation to anyone who saw it. Also, it was only the shape of the fuselage and the covering material that had to be sprayed on, that were truly secret. The rest of the aircraft - engines, landng gear etc - used bog standard parts already in service.

Further to that - and I hear what you say about security, John - just because an individual or group of individuals have been PV'd and hold the very highest security clearance, that does not mean they are privvy to everything. The 'need to know' still applies, i.e. they might have been cleared for TS, TS(COSMIC), TS Atomal or whatever but unless they had a need to know about something they would be as much outside the loop as anyone else. Therefore, if and again it's a big IF - Senior Trend was involved in the RFI, then nobody at any of the twin bases would have been in the loop simply because they would not have had a need to know. On top of that, a security clearance is not the be all and end all - there are caveats and SICs... caveats such as UK Eyes Only, LOCSEN etc etc that further restrict who can see what - and the Subject Indicator Code(s) restrict the distribution of information so you could have a highly classified document (or information) being restricted to a very, very small group indeed. Just because someone has been cleared to TS and above they won't know everything.

As DP stated, the concept of an F-117A was looked at some while ago but was immediately ridiculed as nonsense by the sceptics from the other side of the fence...

[stephan]

puddlepirate,

in regard to the question ''was it ET or was it something mundane'' I think it isn't so much important if it was a prototype or a development aircraft as you say. If the IF is positive then yes, it probably was a smaller version of the Night Hawk (I also mentioned this in my initial posts). The issue I brought into play here was what John had already mentioned and which at first I hadn't deemed to be possible (the EM issue). Only after AdrianF posted the CNN vids I made the connection: F117-A (or one of its antecessors) plus mind distortion via EM waves. The combination of both would possibly allow to make sense when considering most of the witness statements.

Nevertheless it's good that you bring up some further details about those classified aircrafts and also info on clearance etc. Those details may be important for the witnesses themselves to understand what and who may have been involved other than UFOs.

You mentioned the arrival of a C-5. When did this aircraft arrive and was this unusual ? If it arrived at the time of the incidents and if it was unusual that would certainly be a strong indication for a crash or a forced landing of a secret aircraft. Perhaps they were fitted with a parachute to prevent destruction ? I mean, there was no mention by the witnesses of debris, so the craft(s) would have been more or less intact.

[puddlepirate]

JB is much better qualified to confirm the activity surrounding the C-5 than I am but my understanding is that it arrived on Sunday 28th Dec and departed on Wed 31st. it brought with it its own security team and a team of specialists with vehicles who immediately departed for the forest where they recovered something which they subsequently loaded into the C-5. Anything more than that, I do not know.

[Ignis Fatuus]

in regard to the question ''was it ET or was it something mundane''

I reckon ET is the something mundane.
If you believe it was ET then it's basically case closed. Unless ET writes a book and goes on the public speaking circuit, it's just an unverifiable story told by Humans.
Perhaps ET isn't being covered up..perhaps ET is the coverup.

Regarding stealth and other flying secrets, my take on this is the boys didn't see the stealth fighter or any other downed secret in the forest. Obviously what they claim to have or have not seen was beyond those parameters. The RFI could have been nothing but a diversion to cover up Stealth or Have or Senior or SDI assets. A diversion for everybody not in know loop.
Camouflage for the mind.