A little help needed

I think the image was scrubbed from every website possible. But pictures have to remain somewhere as it was on the cover of a british ufo magazine.

Anyway if anyone has it saved id really leave to see the picture again. My computers os is corrupted that has the saved picture. It was on ats at one time. A trangle (aurora) craft being refueled by a kc-135 possibly.

It's a long shot, but I randomly remembered. Been messing with my harddrive all day trying to get it to boot.

a reply to: FrontRunner

To note the guys name was chuck something. Maybe hagard

a reply to: FrontRunner



IS that what you are looking for , hardly a convincing photo but most arent i guess .

a reply to: hutch622

www.urbanghostsmedia.com...

It's an artistist rendition..


Why Op?

Page 6 of the link i gave.

Chris gibson as pointed out below me.😊

You mean Chris Gibsons' sighting from the Galveston Key Oil rig in the North Sea.

He didn't take any pics. however there was a photocopied drawing doing the rounds for a while that some people claimed was a pic.

Gibson was Royal Observer Corps so his testimony and the fact there is/was a known AARA in that area makes many people think he did in fact see something.

He did used to drop into forums and give very brief clarification for a while but not seen him around in ages.


ETA: Beat to it - thats the drawing.

a reply to: FrontRunner

It was supposed to be what the supposed Aurora would look like refueling. They simply took three F-111s and turned one into a giant triangle.

a reply to: Bigburgh

You mean to say that not everything on the net is true . The horror .

a reply to: Zaphod58

His testimony is as good as a pic for me and dont think there is any shame in the opsec planners not pre-empting the random ROC guy being somewhere he would'nt normally be.

Any thoughts on what he saw- or whether the choice of chase planes is of any significance?

a reply to: hutch622

Lol... not in a million.
The OP gave a good description. I knew i saw a photoshop of it before. Google works wonders.🤗

a reply to: Jukiodone

The only time they use chase planes is for testing, which wouldn't have taken place over the middle of the Atlantic. If they were moving something that needed a tanker that was smaller than a bomber they'd have two or more of the same type, in case they needed to help with a checklist. You need multiple pilots of the same type for that.

Moving a bomber size platform wouldn't need other aircraft with it, because they have extra crew members for emergency response. The most likely explanation is a case of mistaken identity.

a reply to: hutch622

This isn't the picture. I know the chris story. He was a raf trained military, and commercial observer. The picture was taken by a chuck clark maybe. I can't remember the name. I do like that picture though thank you. This picture was scrubbed from the face of the internet. When it was on ats it was literally on for less than 20 minutes.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Ardvark correct? I saw that on a documentary not to long ago.

a reply to: Zaphod58

You yourself participated in the thread, and said you were scared for who posted it.

a reply to: FrontRunner

I'm going to use this account now. Remember my email finally. Frontrunner btw

a reply to: Zaphod58

Oooh.. controversial.

Gibson thought the same too until he got out his big book of aircraft planforms for dummies and the nearest thing was something from the 50's (cant recall exact aircraft but was in one of his clarification posts elsewhere).

I wont eliminate Gibsons sighting ( because he doesnt seem to have benefited or tried to benefit from it- unless he got 10K in his bank from US disinfo folks!!) and I've always found the "Low Altitude Penetrator hence the F111's" explanation interesting.

originally posted by: FrontRunner
a reply to: hutch622

This picture was scrubbed from the face of the internet.Text. When it was on ats it was literally on for less than 20 minutes.

Grabs popcorn...
The internet is a public, un-trustued network where data, once uploaded, can be successfully replicated 100% by anyone connected to it - therefore "scrubbing" cannot apply in any shape, way or form.

a reply to: Jukiodone

It can be when heafty jail time is on the line. This picture was not of the blurry sort. Was a detailed photo of a black craft.

Welp..
This thread suddenly has me piqued.
Already gave a star & flagged. Now saving to home screen.

a reply to: FrontRunner



Heres another similar to the first .

originally posted by: Crumbles
a reply to: Jukiodone

It can be when heafty jail time is on the line. This picture was not of the blurry sort. Was a detailed photo of a black craft.

Ah yes- the jail time.

Only applicable to people who are under existing legal obligation of none disclosure/distribution or people who obtained the photograph illegally (i.e taken whilst trespassing/spying).

If you are joe public and get a photo of a black aircraft , taken from a location you are legally entitled to be in, you are ENTIRELY free to do with it as you please.



Obviously someone could bundle you in a van/rappel in through a skylight etc but I feel the very obvious lack of such pix is better explained by the fact "They" prefer prevention (night cover/no fly zones etc) rather than post event clear ups.