Looks like our boys saw something cool out there

originally posted by: WalterDoLittle
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.

No way, this is a conspiracy site, who were you telling this to:

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.

It answered my question before I asked it, do you own the chip in my head?

a reply to: WalterDoLittle

Welcome to ATS. Good posts.

I might to my own math over the weekend to calculate wingspan & height.

For Zaph, Sam and Fred to all say, "gee, not sure what it is," leads me to strongly believe that a B-2 is not the answer. And, as I said in a prior post, the aircraft being moved in and out, in and out, of the hanger just doesn't make sense.

a reply to: SonofaSkunk

Who says it was moved in and out of the hangar?

We have pictures of what looks like a B-2 taken at night through 10 miles of atmospheric distortion, a phenomenon that has a tendency to stretch and compress the image in odd ways. Even so, when compared to one of the B-2 photos in the Aviationist article (from nearly the same angle), it looks like a clear match.

There is no evidence that there was any human activity around the airplane at night. There may (or may not) have been a ground power unit nearby, but not necessarily hooked up to the aircraft. With any objects or equipment between the aircraft and the photographer, the telephoto lens imposes significant forced perspective factors that affect the judgement of scale.

The "mystery airplane" looked like a B-2. It was parked in the spot where the B-2 typically parks (as seen in the satellite view included in the article). In fact, it was still parked there after sunrise. I'm not naming any names, but people saw a B-2 sitting right there, and not from 10 miles away. Was it absent for a few hours later that morning? Well, that wouldn't be surprising if if was airborne for a test flight.

What would be surprising is a classified aircraft sitting out in plain view (even at night) under a bunch of bright lights. That doesn't happen.

a reply to: Shadowhawk

im not going to say it is the B21 but i am will to bet 5$ to anyone willing that it is not the B2.

any takers?

originally posted by: penroc3
a reply to: Shadowhawk

im not going to say it is the B21 but i am will to bet 5$ to anyone willing that it is not the B2.

any takers?

Thats where we are when we saw the sucker. Its does not fit the narrative that its a B-2 IMHO. What it is is up to speculation. Now granted it was from 10.5 miles, but its not like you are going to get an invite to get up close and personal.

Interesting, however I’m leaning towards it being a B-21 and B-2... bait and switch. B-21 landed at night, put a B-2 out in the morning, same spot. Classic bait & switch perhaps?

originally posted by: weavty1
Interesting, however I’m leaning towards it being a B-21 and B-2... bait and switch. B-21 landed at night, put a B-2 out in the morning, same spot. Classic bait & switch perhaps?

Not like they are above that kind of thing. They left a B-2 out on the ramp at Palmdale all night too

Just to be clear, this was not something where we saw a picture, decided it was something, and threw together something to show it. This was a long, careful process, starting with deciding if we were even going to show them. Until someone offered to run them by the Air Force, we didn't plan to.

We spent a week going back and forth, both from the point of it being a B-2, and it not being a B-2. We had Sam and someone he doesn't know outside our group measure the wingspan separately, and come back within 5 feet of each other. Every analysis picture that we did was viewed by four people outside of our group, that have varying degrees of experience with aircraft. Suggestions were made, spelling errors corrected, but at no point did any of them say it was definitely a B-2.

More recently, I showed the pictures to someone I know that had a very eclectic career. He was one of those that had his fingers all over the place over the course of his career. In less than 5 minutes he came back and commented, "it's subtly wrong, isn't it". There's no one thing that can be pointed to that says one way or the other what it is, but there are a number of things that are odd to it.

So either we have at least 8 people that are all seeing what they want to see, and can't recognize a B-2, or there's something odd there.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I would love - more than anyone - for it to not be a B-2. But,..it's a B-2.

It looks like a B-2. It's parked in the B-2's usual spot, and it's common for the B-2 to remain outdoors overnight or longer. Sometimes, the B-2 sits on the runway hammerhead for days at a time.

Historically, there are examples of unacknowledged "black" programs (such as the F-117A at Tonopah, for example) operating at night. Those aircraft were never left out under the bright sodium lamps where they would have been plainly visible to unauthorized observers. They were operated under blackout conditions. There is no reason to think that policy would be different for any hypothetical recent programs.

I think people are seeing what they want to see and ignoring any conflicting evidence.

originally posted by: Shadowhawk
Historically, there are examples of unacknowledged "black" programs (such as the F-117A at Tonopah, for example) operating at night. Those aircraft were never left out under the bright sodium lamps where they would have been plainly visible to unauthorized observers. They were operated under blackout conditions. There is no reason to think that policy would be different for any hypothetical recent programs.

LRS-B and also 'RQ-180' wouldnt necessarily be considered 'black' at this point?

I think people are seeing what they want to see and ignoring any conflicting evidence.

Probably. But you cant just ignore the odd wingspan, hight and nacelles spacing. At the very least its a very weird photo without a real answer atm.

Hey guys, could what you saw be like the triangle flying in this video over the Skies of Rojava (formerly Eastern Syria)


Just a thought.

ACHOOOOOO...Im going with Wichita..
theaviationist.com...

originally posted by: Zaphod58
Just to be clear, this was not something where we saw a picture, decided it was something, and threw together something to show it. This was a long, careful process, starting with deciding if we were even going to show them. Until someone offered to run them by the Air Force, we didn't plan to.

We spent a week going back and forth, both from the point of it being a B-2, and it not being a B-2. We had Sam and someone he doesn't know outside our group measure the wingspan separately, and come back within 5 feet of each other. Every analysis picture that we did was viewed by four people outside of our group, that have varying degrees of experience with aircraft. Suggestions were made, spelling errors corrected, but at no point did any of them say it was definitely a B-2.

More recently, I showed the pictures to someone I know that had a very eclectic career. He was one of those that had his fingers all over the place over the course of his career. In less than 5 minutes he came back and commented, "it's subtly wrong, isn't it". There's no one thing that can be pointed to that says one way or the other what it is, but there are a number of things that are odd to it.

So either we have at least 8 people that are all seeing what they want to see, and can't recognize a B-2, or there's something odd there.

Zaph, can you clarify something for me. Did you run these photo's by the Air Force ? And if so, then I guess they were happy for you to show them. If this was the case, then I guess the AF are not too bothered about keeping whatever it is a secret/black, or they would have politely asked you not to show them.

I think what folks around here must understand is, if it was a B-2, I think Zaph, Samm and their esteemed friends have enough knowledge between them to recognise a B-2, even from those photo's. I have no idea what it might be, but lets hope it comes out into the light soon.

a reply to: nelloh62

Yes. The photo was sent to a buddy of mine who approached the Air Force. They sent people to his house to collect information as to where it was taken and to get a copy of it. They were told that unless they came back with a hard no, we would publish them. They came back with, "it's a B-2".

a reply to: Zaphod58
And there we have the classic plausible deniability.

a reply to: weavty1
Depends on who made that call anyway. Might have never gotten to someone who actually know how the RQ180 (or whatever) looks like. Entirely possible they dismissed this as quick as many here do too.

originally posted by: Shadowhawk
a reply to: Zaphod58
Historically, there are examples of unacknowledged "black" programs (such as the F-117A at Tonopah, for example) operating at night. Those aircraft were never left out under the bright sodium lamps where they would have been plainly visible to unauthorized observers. They were operated under blackout conditions. There is no reason to think that policy would be different for any hypothetical recent programs.

I couldn’t agree more with that statement, as the majority of what you mentioned, took place in the 80’s and 90’s - I wouldn’t doubt it! Even though, that all took place in just fairly recent times, ‘back then’ (heh) that generation of the enlisted/employed which were involved in such clandestine programs, were those with greater discipline, integrity, and zeal, than that of today’s generation of working class individuals. Now, society is so heavily distracted and distant from possessing, much less exhibiting such principles, and with so many other variables and elements that are threaded throughout our world these days, I wouldn’t put it past the current workforce to let a faux pas like this slip thru the cracks.. And in this instance, the AF and NG have a near ideal case for plausible deniability, with having an existing bird with such similarities in general physical appearance (albeit, from 10mi away, at night).

That being said, there’s a fairly decent chance, that this bird could of the suspected younger sibling or near relative of the existing B-2, accidentally caught in the wild.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: nelloh62

Yes. The photo was sent to a buddy of mine who approached the Air Force. They sent people to his house to collect information as to where it was taken and to get a copy of it. They were told that unless they came back with a hard no, we would publish them. They came back with, "it's a B-2".

Thanks Zaph. I bet that response from the AF raised a few eyebrows amongst your buddys.

originally posted by: Shadowhawk
a reply to: Zaphod58

I would love - more than anyone - for it to not be a B-2. But,..it's a B-2.

It looks like a B-2. It's parked in the B-2's usual spot, and it's common for the B-2 to remain outdoors overnight or longer. Sometimes, the B-2 sits on the runway hammerhead for days at a time.

Historically, there are examples of unacknowledged "black" programs (such as the F-117A at Tonopah, for example) operating at night. Those aircraft were never left out under the bright sodium lamps where they would have been plainly visible to unauthorized observers. They were operated under blackout conditions. There is no reason to think that policy would be different for any hypothetical recent programs.

I think people are seeing what they want to see and ignoring any conflicting evidence.

I agree, this is appears to be a B-2. These photos were taken in the middle of summer in the Mojave desert where temperatures can remain in the low 100’s even after the sun sets. Heat can distort an image quality over long distances and cause miraging effects even at night. It’s not out of the question that the compression of the lens coupled with the radiant heat of the desert could cause the image to be distorted and Pareidolia sets in. I want to believe this is something other than a B-2 but it’s clearly not.