Looks like our boys saw something cool out there

originally posted by: mikell
Over 10 miles away the math doesn't make any difference. 50 feet or 500 not going to be able to tell a measurement difference.

Really?!? Care to prove that out?

a reply to: drwire

Solid work here. Hasn't convinced me fully but it's the closest thing I've seen yet to support the B-2 theory

So, they pull a garden variety B-2 out of a hanger in the middle of the night, do whatever, pull it back into the hanger, then drag it out again the next morning, (after Zaph and company have observed an empty apron,) to take a satellite photo to prove what our guys saw the previous night was just a B-2,,,,,,, that they decided to pull in and out of its hanger several times. B-2. Right.

a reply to: drwire

Access ladder on a B-2 is via the nose gear

Air Force is right - B-2

originally posted by: BigDave-AR

originally posted by: mikell
Over 10 miles away the math doesn't make any difference. 50 feet or 500 not going to be able to tell a measurement difference.

Really?!? Care to prove that out?

The angular size of the power unit at that distance is tiny, like 0.01 degrees. Moving by 500 feet changes it by maybe ~1%. The power unit is only a few pixels large in the photo, so you wouldn't see any difference.

originally posted by: hawkguy
a reply to: drwire

Solid work here. Hasn't convinced me fully but it's the closest thing I've seen yet to support the B-2 theory

i think isnt the B2. Why?.

1. the side landing gear position and height.
2. the wingspan.
3. the aircraft engine position.
4. the aircraft engine size. Its seems ONE "big" engine in each side instead of two like the B-2.

a reply to: BigDave-AR


Point being the generator is near the plane but how close without more data points to tell it's distance with a blurry picture you will only be able to guess. So using the generator as a dimension is good it's dimension can't vary enough to affect the measurement.

a reply to: BigDave-AR

To be honest only a fool would use the power units position to debunk the photo. Basic, basic trigonometry tells you that at ten miles the units position give or take a few hundred feet is irrelevant and inconsequential to come close to explaining a 30 percent difference in size.

Face it. whatever that is in the photo, it has a wingspan of roughly 130 feet and stands twelve feet tall.

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
a reply to: BigDave-AR

To be honest only a fool would use the power units position to debunk the photo. Basic, basic trigonometry tells you that at ten miles the units position give or take a few hundred feet is irrelevant and inconsequential to come close to explaining a 30 percent difference in size.

Face it. whatever that is in the photo, it has a wingspan of roughly 130 feet and stands twelve feet tall.

I was never saying otherwise sir I refuted the guy who I thought claimed that the location could make a large difference. I had already stated that I don’t believe it was a B2 and I still don’t. Sorry for the misunderstanding

a reply to: BigDave-AR

All good my bad.

But still throwing that out there for those who want to debunk the photo by using the power units presumed position. Not sure what they got but it shure isn't adding up to be a b2

a reply to: BASSPLYR

Incoming:

Air Force announces half scale power unit! Is exact down to the last detail, except it's shrunk by half!

a reply to: hawkguy

Pretty sure if the unit was half the size it would mathematically work out to something like a 260ish foot wingspan on the aircraft.

Its not a slam dunk, but the group out there is pretty versed and if we thought it was a B-2 we would have posted as such. There are things that simply do not add up for it to be conclusively a B-2. And to be fair we were taking pictures in a challenging environment and from extreme ranges.

Something is not adding up and its not like the USAF have been forthcoming on this kind of stuff before. When the RQ-180 comes out in undeniable fashion as does the B-21 we can look back conclusively

a reply to: FredT

I'm still very impressed. I'm still quite the ameteur when it comes to aviation photography so it's nice to see what the "pros" are up to.

I might be getting in touch once I finally get that hajj to the southwest. Might be good to have experienced advice

originally posted by: hawkguy
a reply to: FredT

I'm still very impressed. I'm still quite the ameteur when it comes to aviation photography so it's nice to see what the "pros" are up to.

I might be getting in touch once I finally get that hajj to the southwest. Might be good to have experienced advice

I would ask Sam or Zaph as I was the newb on this trip. However, Jedi Canyon (aka Father Crowley overlook) and Palmdale are easy ones plus there a 3 aviation airparks in close proximity (Blackbird Park, Joe Davies, and Century Circle)

There was a flight test B-2 assigned to EAFB for a while that was there when Zaph & co went out there.
Maybe she had a late flight that night and no nightshift to pull her into the barn until around sunrise.

Looking closer at the measurements, I see some discrepancies.
Wingspan measured is 30 units, but doesnt seem to be taken from center line. To center line I would assume 31 units.
Looking at the power unit. Observing wheel location, and the possibility that the unit could be slightly rotated thus seeing both part of the side and front, it is my opinion that the length of 3.9 units is too high. Assume this value is closer to 3 units.
Wingspan
3/31= .096774
103/.096774=1064.33
1064.33/12=88.69
88.69*2=177.38ft total wing span

For the height I observe the value of 5.6 units is measured incorrectly, because it's not actually measured to the top of the aircraft or the bottom of the landing gear. Assume it is 6 units.
Height:
3/6= .5
103/.5=206
206/12=17.16ft

Did you see it better than the camera took it, as eyes dont have pixels you probably saw it better through the telescopes?

I cant tell if it is a B2 or not but trust that the 3 of you have seen enough B2's to know if something isnt right, I just cant tell by the photo.

Out of interest, would the USAF routinely work at night, outside if they were not prepping for a flight? What could be the reason, aside from the cover of night, for a B2 to be out there and if they wheeled one out next day, did it fly off?

a reply to: WalterDoLittle

How did you answer my question before I had typed it...NSA or CIA?

a reply to: Forensick

Hehe, let's not add to the speculation. I think government mind control and monitoring is a different ATS section.

Flight testing at Edward's is less at night than during the day. Also there isn't a full squadron of B-2s and its personnel there. Therefore no complete routine night shift is available most of the time. Aircrew can catch and kill the bird with minimum staff on the apron, but not enough staff to tow her in until morning/day shift comes in.