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.

 

F-117 Shot down in 1999

page: 7
1
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 20 2007 @ 04:13 PM
link   
Sorry, but even aeronautics.ru says that's not an F-117 in the newspaper picture. It appears to be a MiG-29. They even identified an AA-10 missile. So unless they're in on hiding another F-117 lost, I'd say it's a case of misidentification. And keep in mind here, this is the same page that says they got a B-52 and B-2. They say the BBC hinted at a second loss, but it wasn't the one in the newspaper. The claim of a second shoot down came from a high ranking Yugoslavian officer.






posted on Jun, 20 2007 @ 04:25 PM
link   
Originally posted by Zaphod58




Sorry, but even aeronautics.ru says that's not an F-117 in the newspaper picture. It appears to be a MiG-29. They even identified an AA-10 missile. So unless they're in on hiding another F-117 lost, I'd say it's a case of misidentification. And keep in mind here, this is the same page that says they got a B-52 and B-2. They say the BBC hinted at a second loss, but it wasn't the one in the newspaper. The claim of a second shoot down came from a high ranking Yugoslavian officer.



Yep. Looks like you are correct on the newspaper photo. We will probably never see a photo of the second one that was shot down. I know they went to extreme lengths to keep the second one shot down a secret.



posted on Jun, 24 2007 @ 12:31 PM
link   
I believe this is another angle of the above picture:

img74.imageshack.us...

Clearly shows a MiG-29.

As to a second F-117 having been shot down.... well, that is doubtful. Especially without proof. You have a society being bombed and no matter how proud, a "victory" (especially the downing of a second F-117), would not be over passed. It would have been on TV. There would be pictures leaving no doubt, much as the footage of the first and only F-117 having been shot down left no doubt.

Anything is possible, but the lack of proof speaks for itself.



posted on Jun, 24 2007 @ 12:46 PM
link   
i also heard that 2 or 1 cant remember b2 spirits were shot down
talk about invicible all they did was aim every single aa and sam battry n fire
makes me laugh



posted on Jun, 24 2007 @ 01:03 PM
link   
Sorry, but we've already proven that NO B-2s were shot down in another thread.
That was pure propaganda and never happened.



posted on Jun, 24 2007 @ 01:12 PM
link   
yea right prove it to me, send me the link



posted on Jun, 24 2007 @ 01:19 PM
link   
The Serbians , or whoever else was shooting at F-117's over Kosovo, did in fact manage to hit a second plane and while it managed to make it back to base it was a write off and never flew again. The damage on that plane is clearly extensive so i guess we may take this to mean that it made it back to base but did not manage to land on the runway?

Source(s)...

www.newscientist.com...

www.pogo.org...

Stellar



posted on Jun, 24 2007 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by manzoor
yea right prove it to me, send me the link


Maybe you can explain to me how a plane that was shot down in 1999 is flying today wearing a squadron insignia from a squadron that flew B-1Bs in 1999, and didn't fly B-2s until 2005. Or how there's a picture of it from the USAF in Iraqi freedom? I'm sick of proving things to people who have a closed mind and think the burden of proof is on me to prove them wrong. You claim it was shot down, show proof other than what are clearly Serbian propaganda websites. The burden of proof is on YOU to show they DID shoot one down.



posted on Jun, 24 2007 @ 07:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58

Originally posted by manzoor
yea right prove it to me, send me the link


Maybe you can explain to me how a plane that was shot down in 1999 is flying today wearing a squadron insignia from a squadron that flew B-1Bs in 1999, and didn't fly B-2s until 2005. Or how there's a picture of it from the USAF in Iraqi freedom? I'm sick of proving things to people who have a closed mind and think the burden of proof is on me to prove them wrong. You claim it was shot down, show proof other than what are clearly Serbian propaganda websites. The burden of proof is on YOU to show they DID shoot one down.


Very true and that should end it right there. Some people, no matter how much proof or common sense you show them, will believe what they want to.

No B-2's were shot down. As I stated in another thread before, the B-2 is, per say, the crown jewel. If one had been shot down, F-117 threads would be more or less insignificant. of course nothing is invincible and it probably is plausible that a B-2 can be shot down. However, that has not yet happened.

As Zaphod58 said, it's propaganda. Nothing more, nothing less.



posted on Jun, 25 2007 @ 12:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58

Originally posted by manzoor
yea right prove it to me, send me the link


Maybe you can explain to me how a plane that was shot down in 1999 is flying today wearing a squadron insignia from a squadron that flew B-1Bs in 1999, and didn't fly B-2s until 2005. Or how there's a picture of it from the USAF in Iraqi freedom? I'm sick of proving things to people who have a closed mind and think the burden of proof is on me to prove them wrong. You claim it was shot down, show proof other than what are clearly Serbian propaganda websites. The burden of proof is on YOU to show they DID shoot one down.

Lawl. Nice one.



posted on Jun, 26 2007 @ 09:19 PM
link   
I'm not sure if it's been stated already, but I read somewhere that the reason the F117 was shot down was due to the fact that it didn't use RAM for stealth along with design, but merely it's design which reflected and scattered radar away from the source. The Serbs were able to target it with one radar station while another received the reflected radar waves and that was able to target the plane. Can't remember where I read it, though.



posted on Jun, 26 2007 @ 10:59 PM
link   
The F-117A is coated with RAM, and there is also RAM inside parts of the aircraft. Coatings, plus shaping and ECM, all contribute to the airplane's survivability.



posted on Jun, 27 2007 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shadowhawk
. . . ECM, all contribute to the airplane's survivability.


ECM?


Do you know something I don't? I have 10 different book with information on the F-117 Nighthawk, and about 4 videos. Not one of them mentions anything about ECM gear on the Nighthawk.

Are you maybe talking about F-117 flying with Support from EA-6 and EF-111 type EW aircraft?

Tim



posted on Jun, 27 2007 @ 07:30 PM
link   
Yes. Many F-117A missions are conducted with support of jammers. For some reason many critics jump on this fact, saying, "Stealth must not be effective if they have to be accompanied by EA-6B or EF-111A."

They forget that "stealth" doesn't mean "invisible." Using ECM to add more protection to the strike package is just common sense and good tactics.



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 03:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by lonemaverick
I'm not sure if it's been stated already, but I read somewhere that the reason the F117 was shot down was due to the fact that it didn't use RAM for stealth along with design, but merely it's design which reflected and scattered radar away from the source. The Serbs were able to target it with one radar station while another received the reflected radar waves and that was able to target the plane. Can't remember where I read it, though.


RAM only adds a few small percentage points to the whole stealth equation - multipoint radar systems are, when used effectively (very very hard to do) are a stealth aircrafts downfall whatever generation it is.



posted on Jun, 28 2007 @ 09:21 PM
link   
They still cannot directly target them, although I'd still prefer to fight without the enemy knowing my general area.



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 06:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by StellarX
www.pogo.org...



now that reads like the replies of someone who posts on this very forum.



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harlequin
now that reads like the replies of someone who posts on this very forum.


I started reading somewhere in the middle as i was looking for a specific claim and even then i got the distinct impression that i have seen that style before.
I always thought he had served somehow and maybe this is proof of that....

Whatever the case it does make for interesting reading if you manage to sit trough it.


Stellar

[edit on 29-6-2007 by StellarX]



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 12:46 PM
link   
Reading someone like Riccioni or Kopp means only getting half the truth (at best) and all of the writers own opinion. It's sad intellectuals can be so clouded by their views as to ignore facts and reality.



posted on Jun, 29 2007 @ 12:52 PM
link   
There are some very good points , and some very direct alegations (reading between the lines).

but im some way i do agree actually - there are too little being ordered to replace the Eagles (the original task) and teh cost has gone stupidly out of control - cancel now to save $50 BILLION might well be the right choice.




top topics



 
1
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join