It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Crafts I Saw at 39,000 Feet

page: 11
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in


posted on May, 10 2016 @ 09:31 AM
When you see something like that, by the time you reach for your phone, set it on camera and focus, it is gone,, so there is no studying it, and no picture.
Anybody knows that. Best to study it as much as you can rather than waste time fumbling with a cell phone.

posted on May, 10 2016 @ 10:02 AM
a reply to: angeldoll

Very correct. From experience. You generally dont have the time nor the want to take your eyes off if it to find you camera phone app and try and take selfies.

posted on May, 11 2016 @ 02:20 PM

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
a reply to: angeldoll

Very correct. From experience. You generally dont have the time nor the want to take your eyes off if it to find you camera phone app and try and take selfies.

Had a recent encounter with some unexpected jets and consciously elected not to miss the spectacle by fumbling for a phone unlock screen so I'd sort of agree as well.

The heat from publishing any such pic might be enough to deter most people as you risk instant internet pitchforks or worse if you become publicly linked to it.

Noted that there are no comments about the pic I linked on the previous page.

My comments would be:

Object seems too resolved for high optical zoom pic
Object seems to be too low for contrails or pic was taken from stationary high elevation.
Contrails dont seem to match trajectory of aircraft

posted on May, 12 2016 @ 02:30 PM

originally posted by: wirehead
a reply to: Zaphod58

Okay, I was a little confused. Basically I thought by some mix-up he'd just scaled up the original and called it his reproduction. I decided to open up photoshop & compare, here I've scaled them side-by-side

One can clearly see that the reproduction is very accurate, but not just an exact copy as I'd originally suspected.

I was also originally suspicious of this picture because it's so close and clear, clearly not belonging with the others. I've never tried to photograph airplanes in flight, but I imagine you typically don't get such a close view of one like that, let alone a black project.

Comparing this 'original' image with some of my photos from RAF Coninsby, I conclude that it is faked from a shot or shots of the Eurofighter Typhoon.

The wing platform is a perfect fit from the same lower three quarter perspective, even down to the drooped leading edge flaps. The slight tail extension matches that of the Typhoon and the flat front of the original appears to have a very slight upward curve. Exactly like the flat plate in from of the Typhoons intake.

I've photographed Typhoons thousands of times (literally) and from all angles. The moment I saw that image is just screamed "TYPHOON!!!" at me :-)

posted on Aug, 7 2016 @ 09:09 PM
I'm bumping this pretty old thread, but I recently learned of the Dream Chaser spacecraft for the first time and I was pretty shocked that somehow I'd never heard of it before. It looks exactly like a tiny space shuttle:

posted on Aug, 7 2016 @ 09:18 PM
a reply to: wirehead

It crashed on its first drop test. They've made changes and are planning more tests but it's currently not doing anything.

posted on Aug, 7 2016 @ 09:43 PM
a reply to: wirehead

I love the dice in the window.

I saw pictures of that craft in my searches.

Thanks for the bump. It startled me a bit at first but then everything startles me. I'm jumpy. Ha!

I still look for a photo of what I saw. Some day...

posted on Aug, 7 2016 @ 10:04 PM
a reply to: tweetie

Sorry. I find your narrative exceedingly believable.

Thanks much for reporting it.

There are a whole slew of folks hereon who seem to think that their manhood is lengthened every time they whine

"pics or id didn't happen!"


"Where's the proof?"

They seem to fail to realize

1. That they are addicted to a false negative error risk to a great extreme


2. That major classes of information are INHERENTLY difficult to impossible to provide proof on and WILL BE SO for likely many years to come.

I find both screeches extremely ignorant as well as insulting.

posted on Aug, 7 2016 @ 10:17 PM
a reply to: BO XIAN

Thanks!! I don't have any doubts about what I saw. It's been almost 2 1/2 years. I'm still keeping an eye out for a picture online. I don't obsess over it but I still think of it often. I've had plenty of opportunities to take the same trip again but I don't think my ears can take it. I often wonder if I would see the craft again or if that was a one time deal.

Thanks for chiming in!! One never knows what might pop up.

posted on Aug, 13 2016 @ 11:52 PM
a reply to: tweetie rtrait-x-33-34-37b-2.jpg

How about one of these... Or more importantly something LIKE these three?

posted on Aug, 14 2016 @ 01:40 AM
These or an FDL project?

posted on Aug, 15 2016 @ 07:05 AM
a reply to: roguetechie

Thanks but I get a 404 on your link.

posted on Aug, 15 2016 @ 07:15 AM
a reply to: cavtrooper7

It just goes to show that "trans-atmospheric vehicles" have been in the works for many decades.

They were very similar to the Atlantis or Challenger shuttles but were dull, dark gray and had about five passenger windows. That shape was what struck me about them first in surprise. They were very utilitarian in appearance.


posted on Aug, 16 2016 @ 11:28 PM
could you tell if it was manned?

posted on Aug, 17 2016 @ 01:18 AM
a reply to: Mr. Moonlight

Wow, that's an interesting question. I could not see into the windows, the crafts were relatively too far away for that, but I assumed they were and it didn't occur to me they might not be.

This is weird and doesn't fit the common line of thinking and publicly known craft but I kept thinking the craft were patrol vehicles.

posted on Aug, 17 2016 @ 09:28 AM
It's frustrating because just last month I was reading about space defense and came across a vehicle that was as you describe. Looked last night but can't seem to find it.

Secondary thought DARPA XS-1 ??? The wings probably set it apart from what you saw.

I'll keep looking for that small gray shuttle.

posted on Aug, 17 2016 @ 10:23 AM
a reply to: Mr. Moonlight

I'm sure it wasn't that Boeing craft. I did come across it many times in my previous searches. Thank you!

If you ever happen across that craft you can't find now, please let me know!

posted on Aug, 20 2016 @ 06:10 PM

Some people seem lacking in basic good manners.

For what it's worth, lots of people don't feel the need to picture every fkn thing they see. Some of these people just use their android phones as, you know, phones.

Anyway, where were the engines in the aircraft you saw? Under wings? Tail?

And could it have been something like a BAe 111?


posted on Aug, 21 2016 @ 12:49 PM
a reply to: unifaun


I looked up the craft you named and couldn't find any example coming close to what I saw. These were not planes, more like shuttle-type craft. The exhaust was coming out of the back end of the plane. A short, round and big exhaust pipe or whatever it is called. Thanks for the input.

As a side note, a few months ago I landed on a Google images page with the search title (not my search) of "Solar Warden," (of all things) which had nothing to do with my looking for images of the craft I saw, and viewed scores and scores of craft from all over the world until my eyes were weary and strained.

P.S. The manners dept. at ATS has been slowly improving.

posted on Aug, 21 2016 @ 05:50 PM
Random stab in the dark it wasn't anything like this was it? .. A Dassault Falcon

Image from google search

Google search Dassault Falcon for more images
edit on 21-8-2016 by ThePeaceMaker because: Added text

top topics

<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in