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.

 

Weird California sighting

page: 33
134
<< 30  31  32    34  35  36 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 22 2014 @ 02:13 PM
link   
a reply to: quatro

If it's high enough in daytime you can't see it either, because the air scattering overwhelms any image. How many satellites do you see during the day? Hard enough to image a black U-2. Flat black is the right color at high altitude, as most of the air is below you.

Remember the RQ-170 which went down over Iran? It was a cream white, right color for low altitude which potentially suggests its mission (vacuuming up radioisotopes or other shorter-range detection technologies??)

Grey is right color for medium altitude.




posted on Jul, 22 2014 @ 02:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: mbkennel
a reply to: quatro

If it's high enough in daytime you can't see it either, because the air scattering overwhelms any image. How many satellites do you see during the day? Hard enough to image a black U-2. Flat black is the right color at high altitude, as most of the air is below you.

Remember the RQ-170 which went down over Iran? It was a cream white, right color for low altitude which potentially suggests its mission (vacuuming up radioisotopes or other shorter-range detection technologies??)

Grey is right color for medium altitude.



I was referring to takeoff/landing. Just look at the Witchita aircraft..that thing was pt 30+k feet probably and someone still caught it on camera. I just imagined a completely new aircraft, which probably doesn't look at all like anything that anyone has ever seen, taking off and landing in daylight would get noticed eventually



posted on Jul, 22 2014 @ 02:27 PM
link   
a reply to: quatro

It doesn't look that different. But that goes back to launch area. The desert has a fairly low population density out there. Most of them are going to see it take off and go "oh, an airplane".



posted on Jul, 22 2014 @ 02:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
a reply to: Sammamishman
Chinese generals will start developing pavlovian phobias to certain colors.

紫色



posted on Jul, 22 2014 @ 02:41 PM
link   
a reply to: clay2 baraka

How about 綠色?



posted on Jul, 22 2014 @ 03:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Sammamishman

綠色 is the new 黑色.



posted on Jul, 22 2014 @ 03:50 PM
link   
And English is the new English.



posted on Jul, 22 2014 @ 04:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: quatro

It doesn't look that different. But that goes back to launch area. The desert has a fairly low population density out there. Most of them are going to see it take off and go "oh, an airplane".


Yeah but I figured there were enough people who watc these bases for this kind of thing that it would be noticed. If there is a base, and you can see aircraft taking off and landing from any vantage point, even with optics, and it's know that secret aircraft take off from there, then someone is definitely watching who knows what is new and what isn't



posted on Jul, 22 2014 @ 04:04 PM
link   
a reply to: quatro

Sometimes the top secret/black world stuff isn't noticeable to the untrained eye. Computer systems, avionics, engines...stuff that isn't outwardly visible.



posted on Jul, 22 2014 @ 04:05 PM
link   
a reply to: quatro

Both major bases that might see it flying out of, have pretty set schedules for most launches. Edwards launches around dawn to get out over the ranges, with a recovery a couple hours after, when the flights are done. Area 51 launches at night most of the time. So if they were to launch outside those normal windows, the odds are that no one would be watching that would recognize it as something different.



posted on Jul, 22 2014 @ 04:14 PM
link   
I saw on one of these threads somewhere a map-graphic which showed common refueling routes across the country and luckily, the space above DFW here is a very common one.

Q - would these test-flights use these common lanes for refueling (if they refuel mid-air) so chances of seeing one are higher?



posted on Jul, 22 2014 @ 04:16 PM
link   
a reply to: TXRabbit

I'm not sure about the route they are using now, but if they stayed on schedule, and didn't alter their plans due to the Ukraine, they are heading out where no one could see them refueling on the way out, and would refuel before heading back in, before you could see them.



posted on Jul, 22 2014 @ 04:23 PM
link   
a reply to: punkinworks10

inertial-less sounds like a good idea but you will unable to use your guidance systems for your vehicle and weapon systems, you will also loose lift as your wing will not interact with the atmosphere and your engines wont work as they don't have any mass to work against to create thrust and of course it,ll have to be unmanned as the body wont really work well either. removal or dampening gravity will work better

edit on 22-7-2014 by suicideeddie because: spelling



posted on Jul, 22 2014 @ 04:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

The problem is, we don't know what causes inertia, at least officially. Mach's principle--mass out there causes inertia here-- is interesting but pretty vague. We know that inertial mass is equivalent to gravitational mass, for whatever reason.

We need the deep black physics handbook



posted on Jul, 22 2014 @ 04:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

说话 什么 ?



Ok, Ok English from now on.



posted on Jul, 22 2014 @ 05:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: suicideeddie
a reply to: punkinworks10

inertial-less sounds like a good idea but you will unable to use your guidance systems for your vehicle and weapon systems, you will also loose lift as your wing will not interact with the atmosphere and your engines wont work as they don't have any mass to work against to create thrust and of course it,ll have to be unmanned as the body wont really work well either. removal or dampening gravity will work better

Actually, that is not entirely correct .
Only an inertial guidance system would be affected and only while within the field.
So lets say you have an aircraft that has a mass of 78,000kg(Sr71), if you negate 10% of the mass the you will have a higher rate of acceleration. The more mass negated the less energy needed to move the mass. It's basic mechanics.

The field would have no effect on aerodynamics.



posted on Jul, 22 2014 @ 06:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Tajlakz
a reply to: Zaphod58

The problem is, we don't know what causes inertia, at least officially. Mach's principle--mass out there causes inertia here-- is interesting but pretty vague. We know that inertial mass is equivalent to gravitational mass, for whatever reason.

We need the deep black physics handbook

You are confusing relatavistic physics with Newtonian physics.
Inertia is a property of mass, absent external forces a mass at rest will stay at rest , and a mass in motion will stay in motion, it's as simple as that and is adequately demonstrated by interplanetary space craft.
Mass is a property of matter, all matter has mass, gravitational fields are a product of mass within space-time, the higher the mass the steeper the gravitational gradient, or the higher the acceleration due to gravity, gravity is the external force previously mentioned.



posted on Jul, 22 2014 @ 07:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: IBossJekler
a reply to: framedragged

He witnessed what they do to a herd of sheep but his work was on planes. That's the stuff he won't talk about. So I'm so intrigued that there is so much of this information on this thread.


Hey, you never know! And even if it wasn't crazy sci fi tech, if it was in the black world it was probably cool at least lol.



posted on Jul, 22 2014 @ 07:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Tajlakz

Oh man.

The things I would do for that book. Self motivated slog through a Java textbook? Not this time world. Not this time.



posted on Jul, 22 2014 @ 11:39 PM
link   
I had a weird sighting of my own recently, but it was more ground based. I don't remember where exactly we were, but we were heading west. This was about a week or so ago, maybe a little more.

Coming in the other direction, there was a pilot car, which wasn't unusual. But the truck that he was leading was an Air Force day cab, pulling an unusual trailer. It almost looked like a normal trailer that any truck would pull, but it was marked oversize. The top and back were straight, and looked normal. The bottom, right about where the landing gear of the trailer was, suddenly angled upward, and the nose curved up into a rounded nose that met with the top corner.

There was a van that looked like a "six pack" that you see driving on the ramp behind them that was with them. The only marking on the trailer were the words Air Force.

If it wasn't for the shape, and lack of security, my first instinct was missile. But it didn't fit with the over all shape of a missile. For some reason, my gut says that it was either part of, or a disassembled airframe. The size would be just about right for a U-2 type airframe, but I can't think of any reason why they would be trucking a U-2 around like that.



new topics

top topics



 
134
<< 30  31  32    34  35  36 >>

log in

join