It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Pictures Of Mystery Plane Over Wichita

page: 27
134
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 13 2014 @ 07:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: mbkennel

I was thinking about the JSTAR platform but something faster and much more stealthy. The cameras in those systems are incredible. There are some youtube videos from the military contractors that showcase just a TINY bit of what's declassified. It's quite impressive.

It reminds me of the F&G (fire and gas) IR/UV systems I worked on about 10 years ago. The computer automatically can tell the difference between a spark from a stick welder and an actual flame. Red boxes would automatically be placed over potential fires and the operator on duty could signal an alarm, and initiate a halon dump. Green boxes were for verified "non threats".

A supersonic plane at high altitude with one of those cameras could identify a sand dollar from a CD at insane speeds at high altitude. It would be very useful for recon.

EDIT: Why not combine what the AWACS does with what the JSTAR is supposedly capable of, all packaged in a nice stealthy-supersonic form factor? That would scare the living hell out of me if I was an enemy on the ground. Just knowing that thing is up there zooming around, pin pointing and painting me for ordinance at a later time/date....


You can't combine the air radar and ground radar on the same airframe. Something to do with radar but I read that somewhere.

And the plane that accompanied the F-117 is not a large wing by any means. There are drawings on the net that are close to what it looks like but not exact. And of course some people have nice moon lit night pics of it




posted on May, 13 2014 @ 07:34 PM
link   
And zaph....ST078A(Q) if you remember our convo...lol


As for the rest, let me talk to someone this afternoon and I'll post some info for you to ponder over...
edit on 13-5-2014 by boomer135 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 13 2014 @ 07:43 PM
link   
a reply to: boomer135

Interference and power requirements.

That's one I'm not likely to forget.
edit on 5/13/2014 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 13 2014 @ 08:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

That's right the power required would have to be on like a c-5 type aircraft or something big enough to hold it.



posted on May, 13 2014 @ 08:34 PM
link   
a reply to: boomer135

It could be done, but only if you want less range than a weather radar, and the blot out of the radar by your other radar.



posted on May, 13 2014 @ 09:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Baddogma
a reply to: Zaphod58

The silent, lightless triangle was in the very late 80's to early 90's... can't be much more specific. It was right on the over-city landing path and very close overhead... couple hundred feet if the wash of air it displaced was any indication.


I saw one of those fly low over my house at night in the early 80s. The silence was unnerving. That was probably what piqued my interest in UFOs and ultimately black projects..



posted on May, 13 2014 @ 09:48 PM
link   
pretty sure we have a craft that can do the supersonic flybys and be extremely stealthy at the same time. it can even do it just as well at low altitudes with out anyone noticing. Just don't know how well it loiters. If it even can.

Imagine putting jstar technology in one of them and having it do a flyby and mapping of an entire chinese coast line in minutes. Or anything else it wants to photograph, map, analyze. Then have a second one just like it but loaded with bombs instead of electronic stuff buzz the entire coastline a few minutes later with that data, dropping ordinance surgically, and with out anything being able to stop it. Or it could just pass on the data to the higher ups and two minutes later submarines in the pacific have updated coordinates for their cruise missiles. Or whomever can use the info. A jstar kinda like johnny on the spot. when you need it, where you need it.

This craft could fill a few rolls with different internal modifications. Jstar, sr-75, slr-bomber.

a reply to: MystikMushroom



posted on May, 13 2014 @ 10:53 PM
link   
I played with the original image, saturation, shadows, and film grain, and here is what I got. Looks like a B-52, much to the chagrin of what everyone is saying. It does seem, as some have said, to be a matter of angle and perhaps atmosphere. Some things were turned all the way up in the original image, such as highlights.



The second image was harder, it was very manipulated. It had full highlights, full lights, and full saturation, so it took a lot to try to bring something of the image back. Someone definitely played with this photo a while.

Anyways, here is what I could bring out with it.





edit on 13-5-2014 by Libertygal because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 13 2014 @ 11:15 PM
link   
a reply to: Libertygal

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe there were additional photos taken of the B-2's that flew over shortly after the initial Dorito sighting in Kansas... The first photo you posted, illustrating your post-processing techniques, I believe is one of the latter photos taken of the event (which would be one of the B-2's). The second photo you posted is of the initial sighting... The Dorito.



*snip* (edit)
edit on 5/13/2014 by weavty1 because: (no reason given)

edit on 5/13/2014 by weavty1 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 13 2014 @ 11:25 PM
link   
a reply to: weavty1
The first image I adjusted was linked on page 6, someone said the original was there, an imjur account. Not sure which was which, but two sightings as I understand it? One in Texas, one in Kansas?

I was just trying to clean up the pics and bring out what I could, since I seem to have some skill for that. Not patting myself on tbe back, just something I fairly recently discovered.

I am going back to the beginning of the thread and clarifying, also, looking fir better, maybe closer to first generation images. Hoping to find some with less manipulation.




edit on 13-5-2014 by Libertygal because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 13 2014 @ 11:29 PM
link   
The first one from Texas was taken in B&W.

The legitimate first airframe spotted during the Kansas sighting, is posted in the OP of this thread.



posted on May, 13 2014 @ 11:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: weavty1
The first one from Texas was taken in B&W.

The legitimate first airframe spotted during the Kansas sighting, is posted in the OP of this thread.



Here is the link, was posted by Kuroodo, bottom of page 5, where I got the first image, the alleged Texas image:
i.imgur.com...

The second image, from Kansas, I got straight from the OP. I went to the link and verified and downloaded the image from the article.

I will look for the black and white image.

ETA - I confirmed the second image. Went direct to the source:
deepbluehorizon.blogspot.com...

And downloaded the highres image, cropped it, and it is the exact same as the OP image, and the second image I posted. Would appreciate more links on the Texas image, a link to the black and white, etc.

Again, the second image was highly manipulated before I touched it. Even the one direct from the source, has been manipulated. Not saying this is good or bad, just a fact.

It makes it much harder to pull out details.

The first image was manipulated some, but likely only to lighten it some, for visibility. It was easier to pull detail out of it.

edit on 14-5-2014 by Libertygal because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 13 2014 @ 11:52 PM
link   
If these were B-2s, then a lot of people have been fooled, including professionals who have a reputation to maintain.



posted on May, 14 2014 @ 12:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
If these were B-2s, then a lot of people have been fooled, including professionals who have a reputation to maintain.


I posted the higher detail images, it is up to the viewer to decide. In my opinion, the first image does look like a B-2, the second image is hard to say, but, I am not an aircraft specialist, by any means. I just happen to be able to bring details out in images.

What people decide from there is up to them.




posted on May, 14 2014 @ 12:28 AM
link   
a reply to: clay2 baraka

I went and played with this pic too. I will just post the image. People can decide what they think, but, once again, full lights, highlights, and shadows, were turned all the way down in the software I use.

I had to re-manipulate the image to bring it back to some sense of normalcy, which left it very washed out. Then, I enhanced the image to attempt to bring out details. The first thing that jumped out at me, that was not readilly apparent in the downloaded picture from the link, was this image was also taken at some angle. This can be detected simply by looking, even use an angle if you want, and measure, the upper wing to center, and lower wing to center.

The upper wing is angled back away from the viewer, and the bottom wing is closer. This is not so readilly apparent in the original image. This is allegedly from the Kansas sighting.



foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com...






The implications being, this is being presented as an anomaly. It appears that the plane is entering a banking maneuver, and heading towards the photographer. Take a model, and hold it in this position. At a certain point, you will lose focus of the notches in the back that define a B-2. Add a lot of highlights, wash out the photo, and you have an anomaly, that 'appears genuine', only if you are looking for direct image manipulation, such as cut and paste, cutting tools, etc.

Again, I leave this up to the viewer, but you can even take a piece of paper and measure the upper wing lenth from center, make a mark, then measure the lower wing to center and make a mark. Depth perception, especially from a distance, and with an object like this, can mean everything.


edit on 14-5-2014 by Libertygal because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2014 @ 01:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
EDIT:
And, if I'm on the right track, this might be a successor to to whatever accompanied the F-117. I have heard rumors of a larger, very secretive aircraft that would accompany the F-117. According to what I've read you never see it -- but when F-117's were deployed it's always "around".


I have read the same anecdotes and have been thinking much the same thing. Apparently the F-117 companion craft became operational a few years after the stealth fighter launch..

I guess we'll find out soon.



posted on May, 14 2014 @ 02:04 AM
link   
So on an unrelated note (I am not saying that the aircraft over Wichita was this aircraft), several years ago, there was apparently an interesting attempt that apparently resulted in a flight test model, but never went operational.

That attempt was to create the first stealthy tanker, that could go over unfriendly territory, and have a high survivability rate.

According to what I've heard, it was a flying wing design, with a boom similar to the KC-135, with altered control surfaces on it (it had jagged ruddervators on it, instead of a straight edge like on the -135), and a RAM coating. The aircraft reached flight testing, and dry hookups to other aircraft, but as far as I know they never actually transferred fuel to a receiver. During testing they found that the RCS wasn't nearly as low as they hoped, and that it's really hard to hide a boom (hence the comment earlier in the thread that a stealth tanker has some difficulties).

Just thought I'd throw that out there.

edit on 5/14/2014 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 14 2014 @ 03:17 AM
link   
We can see a black part on the middle rear of the plane what it is , engine , or something else ?



posted on May, 14 2014 @ 06:33 AM
link   
Why would they want a tanker that can fly over enemy territory? So close ground support can keep on station longer with out having to abandon the troops on the ground? I can see them needing a stealth tanker to refuel other aircraft that are also stealthy and flying over enemy territory. You wouldn't want the enemy to decide that the quickest easiest way to destroy unbeatable american secret stealth bombers or what have you is by simply hunting the tankers and ambushing them when they are at their most vulnerable refueling.

I imagine a boom hanging down from a flying wing is hell on the flight control to keep the aircraft staple let a lone steady. They probably have figured out a way though.

I figure they use regular tankers 90% of the time to refuel just about everything. Maybe have a few secret modified aircraft to be tankers for special aircraft that have special flight considerations. Ie can't fly at slow enough speeds to merge with the tanker. Tanker can't fly high enough. Or those types of craft simply do without air refueling to minimize security leaks via photographers on the ground, on boats, or aircraft patrolling nearby. The craft probably flies to a forward base. Say okinawa, guam, philippines fuel up again do their run, land at same base or similar refuel and fly home. That would make the most sense to me.

a reply to: Zaphod58



posted on May, 14 2014 @ 06:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
Why would they want a tanker that can fly over enemy territory? So close ground support can keep on station longer with out having to abandon the troops on the ground? I can see them needing a stealth tanker to refuel other aircraft that are also stealthy and flying over enemy territory. You wouldn't want the enemy to decide that the quickest easiest way to destroy unbeatable american secret stealth bombers or what have you is by simply hunting the tankers and ambushing them when they are at their most vulnerable refueling.

I imagine a boom hanging down from a flying wing is hell on the flight control to keep the aircraft staple let a lone steady. They probably have figured out a way though.

I figure they use regular tankers 90% of the time to refuel just about everything. Maybe have a few secret modified aircraft to be tankers for special aircraft that have special flight considerations. Ie can't fly at slow enough speeds to merge with the tanker. Tanker can't fly high enough. Or those types of craft simply do without air refueling to minimize security leaks via photographers on the ground, on boats, or aircraft patrolling nearby. The craft probably flies to a forward base. Say okinawa, guam, philippines fuel up again do their run, land at same base or similar refuel and fly home. That would make the most sense to me.

a reply to: Zaphod58



I agree, I just cant see the benefit of a Stealth Refueller in terms of $ - Money would probably be better spent on reducing the need for fuel or increasing the amount of fuel a stealth attack jet can carry (and both together). I cannot see anything good coming from loitering over modern air defences stealthy to refuel.

Surely Stealth as a first strike method is best utilised taking out known targets, fly in, drop ordnance, fly out.

You need to loiter, high altitude spy drone with the endurance, marks targets for stealth to fly in and fly out.

Surely it would be cheaper to build 2 x more of the same high altitude spy / target designators that could refuel back at base and be on station to take over that to build a whole class of refueller....

Cant see a Stealth Refueller, its not on my radar.



new topics

top topics



 
134
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join