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.

 

The secret program to hide a secret program, as told by an F-14 RIO.

page: 6
8
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 16 2015 @ 01:36 AM
link   
a reply to: boomer135

Thanks for the closeup...is that from the other side of pikaboo peak? Looks like late 80's to mid 90's.

I agree that it looks rather unstable ...BUT...
With modern flight computers almost ANYTHING can be made to fly...even the F117a is unstable and CANNOT fly without computers. I am curious as to whether this was a design study and test platform rather than an operational craft.
edit on 2015/1/16 by StargateSG7 because: Sp




posted on Jan, 16 2015 @ 01:38 AM
link   
a reply to: SpeedFanatic

Yeah that's true.

I guess the reason I was asking in the first place is to get a handle on whether there is a precedent for black aircraft to be making overflights of foreign territory whilst still in the black. The F117 was considered too secret to use before Panama so I assume it wasn't flying transatlantic before then either. Now people did report seeing it over Nevada but that's different. We've now had several plausible sightings recently either over the southern/eastern US, and speculation they're flying transatlantic for operations. Based on the lack of precedent I'd conclude they're all ISR platforms...



posted on Jan, 16 2015 @ 02:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: gfad
a reply to: StargateSG7

I'm confused, are you claiming this is a photo? A photo that was modified before being sent to you and then modified by you back into what you think the aircraft looks like? Can you share the original image, photoshop effects and all.

I'd probably side with boomer on this one and say it doesn't look particularly airworthy to me!


---

The background is a google map of groom lake or area 51...the craft itself i cut out of a solid white background which i did in corel photopaint.

I can tell that certain photoshop effects were added to what i believe is a REAL PHOTO.
I also believe the photo of the craft is over 20 years old because the splotch effect added was
Designed to HIDE 35 mm film grain which i can see when i do noise enhancement. I also believe
That the plane is real because of the large control surfaces depicted on the back wing in addition to
The ridges i see on the exhaust nozzle which seem to be indicative of thrust vectoring technology. IF this is real, the faceting indicates
A likely Lockheed design.

I also believe that the windows were added later
To try and cover up their real shapes. That in itself leads me to believe SOMEONE wanted to cover their tracks so they could not be tracked to a specific point in time or place based upon the design of specific parts which may have been changed at a later time, which means a possible LEAK...ergo the craft is likely real. I made a copy of the craft with changes made to reflect what i THINK the real window shapes are. That change hopefully will trigger some peoples minds as to
What might have been seen on any base or during any sky watch. Send me a u2u if any of you have seen anything like this craft....

I will add the original photo that was sent to me
To this forum tomorrow when i get back to my other computer...its a jpeg photo of the plane on
A plain white backgound...it looks like it was cut
Out of another background...i will also ask WHERE the photo was taken...
edit on 2015/1/16 by StargateSG7 because: Sp



posted on Jan, 16 2015 @ 05:19 AM
link   
a reply to: StargateSG7

Maybe this deserves a thread of its own?



posted on Jan, 16 2015 @ 05:31 AM
link   
a reply to: StargateSG7

Man, I can't wait for it.



posted on Jan, 16 2015 @ 05:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: StargateSG7
a reply to: boomer135

Thanks for the closeup...is that from the other side of pikaboo peak? Looks like late 80's to mid 90's.

I agree that it looks rather unstable ...BUT...
With modern flight computers almost ANYTHING can be made to fly...even the F117a is unstable and CANNOT fly without computers. I am curious as to whether this was a design study and test platform rather than an operational craft.


No. And it was early 2000s...so is this one.


And I've never seen an aircraft designed like that before. Not saying it doesn't exist, but ive never seen it or even heard about it.

And come on man. I know you can tell that the picture is completely fake. I don't even know how to use photoshop yet and I can tell it's fake. It looks like my 6 year old drew it.



posted on Jan, 16 2015 @ 07:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: boomer135
And come on man. I know you can tell that the picture is completely fake. I don't even know how to use photoshop yet and I can tell it's fake. It looks like my 6 year old drew it.


Can't
this enough



posted on Jan, 16 2015 @ 08:28 AM
link   
a reply to: StargateSG7

I found image that can be similar to your drawing. It's scan from an aviation magazine from 2000 year. It is artwork not real picture actually and it is signed as TR-3A in this magazine. All we know that TR-3A is a fiction. So look:




posted on Jan, 16 2015 @ 09:17 AM
link   

originally posted by: gfad

originally posted by: boomer135
And come on man. I know you can tell that the picture is completely fake. I don't even know how to use photoshop yet and I can tell it's fake. It looks like my 6 year old drew it.


Can't
this enough


---

Its only fake so far as the EXTRA photoshop filters
That have OBVIOUSLY been added to it and the
Obvious changes made to the engine fairing and windows....BUT...what you are NOT seeing is the
35 mm film grain and the uneven edging on
The faceting...when one does noise enhancement and a closeup view...who uses film anymore?
Why are the facets so uneven and slightly bowed inwards on the rear wing facets...thats not 3D rendering...its either real VERY OLD hand drawn design art photographed in 35 mm film or a real 20+ year old photo made to look bad!...who drew it and WHY? Was it a design study? Why commission it if it wasnt able to fly?



posted on Jan, 16 2015 @ 10:09 AM
link   
Latecomer to this thread but going back a few pages in response to MBKennel's post regarding the sr-72. I agree with him. Why not put the engines on top. But for a different reason. He's talking radar returns. And I agree thats a valid point with an engine as large as whatever they would probably stick into something like the speculated about sr-72.


Another fine moment from the "Bassplyr's Crazy Speculation" program (airing randomly on an ATS thread near you):
One of the things about the valkrie and probably the sr-71 is that it had due to it's shape of having a long skinny front end and a wide delta rear excellent lift at high altitudes and at high speed. You can engineer the length of the long skinny front end (the chime on the sr-71 the long goose neck like fuselage of the valkrie so that the nose tip creates an air spike (not sure i'm using the right terminology here) which will collapse along the fuselage at a certain point. The air spike will at a certain distance depending on the speed collapse and slam into the fuselage. The valkrie got great lift because of that and even used anhedral tilted wingtips to help trap that shock wave and maximize the lift. I would argue that you wouldn't want to ruin that lift effect by having the engines on the fuselage on the bottom. Rather put them on top so that they can still catch that shockwave of air on top and leave all that shockwave on the bottom to supply enhanced lift. Maybe throw in the anhedral wingtips for good measure. Hey why not they worked on the Valkrie.

This way you get the enhanced lift. The engines in relation to the distance of the nose of the aircraft get a nice shockwave of air to feed their hungry mouths. The engines get enhanced radar and heat signature reduction. The plane will still be based off of tried and true designs. Put in some new materials so that it can handle higher heat and fly at higher altitudes. Maybe put on some of the new heat mitigation gizmos to reduce friction further helping things along. Line that long neck of the aircraft with all sorts of optics and other things where they'll be away from where the shockwave collapses on the belly further back. Give her stealthy contours. and the latest materials for that sorta thing and you got yourself a bad ass plane.

Maybe use an idea I'm running around in my head. line the area in front of the engine intakes on the fuselage with some sort of EM field that can help control the shape of where the air stream collapses on the top of the plane. Maybe push it up or back a few feet so that the engines get good air flow regardless of altitude or speed. You know have some degree of variable control on where the shock wave collapses so the plane flies well at any speed or altitude it's capable of. Maybe the same idea can help finesse the airflow as it gets shunted around interior ducting on the way to the engines buried in the fuselage. Maybe even find some way to use them like a sorta bussard ramscoop and draw in more O2 than normal at high altitude sorta like a high tech supercharger.

The only thing holding the plane back from doing whatever the hell it wants is the fact that super sonic and hypersonic aircraft are loud. People in jerkministan might start to wonder if it keeps happening on a regular basis why their windows keep cracking in the living room, why all their pictures are askew on the wall and why the neighbors chimney keeps falling over. could be ruled out as your usual jerkministan manufacturing and construction technique woes. But eventually someone is going to catch on. SO I would work on that whole aspect of the aircraft. How to mitigate the noise. High altitude helps. But what else could one do to make her as fast AND as quiet as a muscular 800lb sasquatch stalking it's prey in the woods.



posted on Jan, 16 2015 @ 10:13 AM
link   
a reply to: StargateSG7

You're asking questions about a "photo" that only you has seen. Also if the original is so incriminating share that rather than your artists impression.



posted on Jan, 16 2015 @ 10:16 AM
link   
a reply to: SpeedFanatic

Looks a lot like the plane spotted over Wichita?

files.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jan, 16 2015 @ 10:16 AM
link   
a reply to: SpeedFanatic

Looks a lot like the plane spotted over Wichita?

files.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Jan, 16 2015 @ 11:03 AM
link   
a reply to: gfad

I think that the plane seen over Wichita is rather pure delta aircraft not in "B-2 shape". Kansas aircraft is more similar to the one I put in my previous post.



posted on Jan, 16 2015 @ 01:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: gfad
a reply to: StargateSG7

You're asking questions about a "photo" that only you has seen. Also if the original is so incriminating share that rather than your artists impression.


The "photo" i received is as below saved using Corel Photopaint ... with
the craft on a plain white background and when you do an extreme
saturation enhancement you can see the JPEG macroblocks around
the edges indicating it was a cutout from ANOTHER background.

Icon-sized photo of original photo received by me:


Full Size Original photo version:
files.abovetopsecret.com...

I now have TWO pieces of corroborating evidence as to
the authenticity of the craft I have show on ATS!

1st is a Photo of a SIMILAR craft present on both US and German aircraft/UFO
websites. The configuration NOT that of a manned aircrfat but an obvious
DRONE due to the linear antenna at the top forward part of the hull and what
looks like two intake inlets at the far forward part of the hull. Based on the
engine nozzle size in relation to say the F-16 Fighter which looks very similar
(which is where I suspect it got its engine from) I estimate its size to be
about 50 feet wide by 80 feet long which makes it a very large drone!
This is DEFINITELY NOT a Lockheed design...looks VERY NORTHRUP-Y
to me IMHO!

Notice the Cammo design on the wings of the 2nd craft!

The design to me based upon the smoothness of the wings
but the F-16 engine nozzle screams late 1990's to early 2000's!

Was this originally a competition for a recon/bombing craft
between Lockheed and Northrup? It looks like Northrup won
this round! Both craft look identical in wing design including
the rounded sweep at the trailing edges of the wings.
In fact the actual proportions seem identical to me
just one is manned and faceted and the other is
unmanned and a UAV drone...Sounds like it came
down to a cost-of-production decision to me!

See Icon-sized photo:


See Full Size Photo:
files.abovetopsecret.com...

The OTHER 2nd interesting note I have, is that the first craft I have shown
which is from persons in Germany, is that it is a purported 35mm photo of a
hand-drawn final artist plan-form presentation (his words) of a final aircraft
design taken in the state of OHIO in 1989! It was also purported that the
plan-form drawing is a FINAL artists render that had a sky blue/light grey
camouflage pattern drawn upon it with a surrounding thin blueprint-like
border frame and the names of members of a design review committee
printed in boxes in the lower portion of the plan-form diagram.

I was also told that the diagram had the name of engineering talent
KNOWN to been have working at Lockheed during the 1980's.
(I will attempt to get the names of those personnel!)

(If true, I suspect then this plan-form diagram was from one of the
aircraft evaluation departments at Wright Patterson Air Force Base
which is in OHIO?!)

---

So I must say the plot thickens....

edit on 2015/1/16 by StargateSG7 because: sp, grammar fixes and additions.



posted on Jan, 16 2015 @ 01:35 PM
link   
a reply to: StargateSG7

The sky blue/grey cammouflage pattern comment
and the splotchiness of the first image now makes sense
since the photo looks like it was likely originally a
4 bits-per-pixel or an 8 bit greyscale photo scan
converted to a low-res digital photo which ALSO
makes sense because digital storage was at a
HUGE PREMIUM in the late 1980's and early 1990's
and thus any 35mm photos of diagrams would have
been scanned into a computer system at the lowest
feasible resolution and lowest colour-depth feasible
at the time that still gave a good representation
of the original document. That colour depth
reduction is why the original is so grainy
and splotchy looking! However the colour
reduction was NOT ENOUGH to hide the
true film grain pattern still present when
enhanced!


edit on 2015/1/16 by StargateSG7 because: sp



posted on Jan, 16 2015 @ 01:45 PM
link   
a reply to: StargateSG7

I understand what you mean about the picture looking like it was modified, especially in regards to the film grain. I'm not qualified to chime in either way, but I do agree that there are details in the picture that appear to be covered over and it does have a pretty decent sense of being 3d.

The smudges and white lines along the center edge of the windows definitely look drawn by hand either way. Maybe it's a picture of something unmanned and they shopped the windows in entirely hah.

That second picture sure bears a striking resemblance in any case. edit: Well ok then Mr Horten! I don't hear a who though.
edit on 16-1-2015 by framedragged because: (no reason given)

edit on 16-1-2015 by framedragged because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 16 2015 @ 01:45 PM
link   
a reply to: StargateSG7

I don't want to rain on your parade man, but...

Your likely Northrop design showed up real quick on a reverse image search on google as a purported Horten Ho XIIIa, with the earliest date seen in this site here, back in 2005.

And, none the less, even this picture is a fake one.

Another couple of give aways of the fact that the image of your black triangle is a fake, are these:
-if this supposed image depicts a stealth aircraft, who, in their sane mind, would ever place an engine in that position considering the IR signature it would offer from behind and the radar return its front would provide?
-flight controls would seem to be only a pair of ailerons: that's suicidal on that kind of a platform.

For the rest, it's just a blurry texture and nothing more.

I know every single one of us on the aviation forum would be delighted to have "solid proof" of some black aircraft none other knows about (apart from Boomer and Zaphod, because, unlike us mere mortals, they indeed have solid proof), but your image is a fake one. Don't cling onto it and keep searching in other directions though



posted on Jan, 16 2015 @ 02:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: CiTrus90
a reply to: StargateSG7

I don't want to rain on your parade man, but...

Your likely Northrop design showed up real quick on a reverse image search on google as a purported Horten Ho XIIIa, with the earliest date seen in this site here, back in 2005.

And, none the less, even this picture is a fake one.

Another couple of give aways of the fact that the image of your black triangle is a fake, are these:
-if this supposed image depicts a stealth aircraft, who, in their sane mind, would ever place an engine in that position considering the IR signature it would offer from behind and the radar return its front would provide?
-flight controls would seem to be only a pair of ailerons: that's suicidal on that kind of a platform.

For the rest, it's just a blurry texture and nothing more.

I know every single one of us on the aviation forum would be delighted to have "solid proof" of some black aircraft none other knows about (apart from Boomer and Zaphod, because, unlike us mere mortals, they indeed have solid proof), but your image is a fake one. Don't cling onto it and keep searching in other directions though



---

The photo you have shown in your link seems
to be the identical craft I got a photo of.

See comparison of OTHER photos:

Icon size link:


Full size photo link:
files.abovetopsecret.com...


However that countryside in the photos looks a lot more
like 1950's USA than 1940's bombed up Germany...Looks like
the USA made those designs REALLY fly!

Still kinda looks like a Northrup-y design to me though!



posted on Jan, 16 2015 @ 02:11 PM
link   
a reply to: StargateSG7

---

OOPS! It was just pointed out to me that the rear-looking nozzle
might not actually BE a nozzle but rather a FAIRING for retractable
in-line LANDING GEAR! -- Sorta like what the U2 spy plane does now
with ITS single-inline landing gear setup!

The 3rd photo of the Horten XIII on the ground seems to give
that function away that it's a landing gear fairing and NOT a nozzle!

-- HMMM...is this a GLIDER THEN? and NOT a powered aircraft?

WHY MAKE IT NON-POWERED?



edit on 2015/1/16 by StargateSG7 because: sp




top topics



 
8
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join