no idea what so ever.

That piccie was taken just over two weeks ago. The piccie was taken by some one I trust totaly and have known for nearly a decade - I've done work with them in the past in UK waters, and would trust them even if they said they had a yeti tied up in the boot of the car - If they say they have some thing, they have it - The person is 100% 'science is all' and their future career depends on this integrity and the 100% reliability of their research (Oh and my not naming them or getting them hauled into jail for breaking any arcane secrecy laws, hence my worry about posting the image)

Is it manned? they cannot answer that 100%, but, they gave a very interesting observation. As the craft climbed the 'flaps' on the wings 'Jiggled' and the craft rocked side to side ever so slighlty on each activation. Wether this is software driven or not I do not know because im no UCAV expert, BUT, to me it sounds like some kind of shake down flight - I've seen it happen with normal fast jets and even transports, so I guess on their observations and guess work i'd say not sure for definite.

Thats strange, something looks different on that one. Are the wings longer and thinner, more like the B-2? There might be different versions of the same basic design, unless its a coincidence (and how likely is that?)

Well the first B-2 prototype was the same design as the current fleet according to my research.

www.vectorsite.net...

In any case, the work went forward, and the first "B-2" prototype, "Air Vehicle One (AV-1)", was rolled out at the Northrop plant in Palmdale, California, on 22 November 1988. The rollout was public, but observers were restricted to stands that kept them well away from the aircraft and limited their view of it to the front. Although the F-117 had been kept secret for years after its first flight, its test flights had been restricted to night, and that wasn't regarded as acceptable for the B-2. Since it would have been quickly spotted during daylight flights there was no sense it keeping it a complete secret, and nobody tried.

Now if we are looking at an even early prototype then its possible that its related to the B-2.

The clearity of this image could be why its wingtips etc seem longer waynos.
JIMC5499 I'm wondering where you got your image from and its creadablilty etc.

[edit on 21-6-2006 by Canada_EH]

OK looking into the less likely but alternate possibility of a B-2 prototype flying around, according to this website the first B-2 prototype flown was the AV-1, which according to wikipedia became the Spirit of America.

That leads me to conclude that its either a classified variant/prototype, or more likely, not a B-2 prototype but another aircraft all together.

I'm interested in getting info from Northrup about why they didn't go with this design. If there was some sort of flaw etc that would of needed to be addressed.

Well considering that I made it from this picture and Paint in about 5 minutes might have something to do with it.
I have shown the lines I added and filled in.

atsmedia.cachefly.net...

In my opinion the picture used in compairison here is the original source of the image before it was edited.




Mod Edit: Image Size – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 21/6/2006 by Mirthful Me]

What do you mean by shake-down flight? Because to me this just sounds exactly like normal aileron movement! It's probably just the plane, human or computer controlled, adjusting its bank during flight.

I know that this would be a very easy image to create in paint/photshop etc seeing as im a graphic designer myself and it would take me 2 mins lol ( competion with you JIM ). My hope is that it isn't but i also thought the same as you when i saw the comparsion that was make in the above photo.

Ha ha, very good Jim. Now I wonder if my buddy is having a laugh at my expense! He can access the site at work though he isn't a member and he's been looking at it in the last half hour. He rang me up and told me to look in my inbox for something 'special' he was going to send tomorrow. When I first opened it my heart skipped I must admit but now I feel a little more sceptical so I would have posted it saying 'WOW!' but now I'll just ask what people think. Jims method wouldn't seem to work with this though I must admit.

edit ; He's back in the UK in August (and gutted that he's missed the entire second series of Dr Who, lol) so I can't wait to ask him face to face.

PS How does my upper shot over the page work as a B-2, it doesn't seem to be?



[edit on 21-6-2006 by waynos]

Actually when I was making that comparison image I thought the exact same thing but when I reduced the opacity on the B-2 image to get the same alignment it was actually quite dificult as the images appear to be from slightly different perspectives. Anyway if anyone else wants to give it a go here is the pic I used.

I hope its not a fake but bearing in mind how easily it could be done I have my concerns. Also not wanting to become a troll and I don't really know the circumstances, but Greebo you may trust your sources completely but they havn't always been that reliable; Is the Lockheed Blackbird still in use?.

OK now Waynos that is MUCH more interesting! Can you tell us where your source works? The plane clearly has USAF markings. I would love to learn more.

Can anyone direct me on how to post an image i just created. using photoshop i just created this image in question. If anyone wants to knwo how i did. I took the image posted by gfawd and turned it a bit blurred the image added a bump and filled in the beaver tail. then i motion blured it and added some noise.
From just now recreating the exact same spacing etc I'd say you friend played with photoshop. BUT I could be wrong i can't overly disprove what your saying madgreebo. I'm just worried about how similar they are.
Any help on how to get my image up would be great. thanks guys.

well there you go -that exposes my total and utter lack of knowledge about why a plane would deliberatly wobble whilst flying. As for 'shake down flights', when I used to fly gliders from Benson (ATC) (Powered grob Vigilants) after maintainance they would get a good going over on the ground (All flaps tested ect) and when in the air, the same would be done again (Made for a very interesting flight and they were very sought after first thing in the morning as you got loads more flying time!)

And as for the 'paint + 5 minutes' comment, is it any wonder why people fail to post here any thing of interest? right - Heres an answer to your comments, and i'm not going to be rude.

You have made an image, well done, good for you, now stop being stupid. Deny ignorance by all means, but do not throw a fake you made into this - Dude, Yes, even I did look at the posted piccie closely, but theres aload of MAJOR differences - a plane for starters!, wing tip rails for another, the actual size of the B-2 versus the craft in the piccie - I traced it out, theres major size differences, theres even THE SKY IS DIFFERENT.

OK rant is not going to start, so, i'll leave you with the image, and this to mull over. I get slated on these threads for what i post - Black ops / UFO / Sr-71 ect ect. And yes, The SR-71 is still flying, I just have # image skills. I make it look like a crayola attack and its rubbish. I ruined the image trying and was gutted. i didnt post for a while because I was actually really really #ty about the flack i got, and the effort I tried to put in for people - I even got a dawn launch and got a 'could be any time any era response' terriffic - not a single soul offered to HELP OUT THOUGH!!

And im beggining to see a pattern. Every time I do a post a person leaps into it and starts a flame, I get annoyed because i actually enjoying going out of my way to help ats folks, and will share every scrap of information I have. I even take with good humour the warnings i get when i get a little heated. And i accept that yes, some times I cannot give any more details than i recieve, and yes, some times you may not like that, BUT I CANNOT DICTATE WHAT I GET SENT TO ME.

But dude, I have had enough. I give in, I am defeated. years of denying ignorance, trawling the web for info and contacts to share stuff with, and gaining no less than 12 applauses from the site admin for posts and their content on a massive variety of subjects (and helping out others as they search for info), this for me breaks the camels back. You know what? find your own stuff, get your own list of people willing to stick their necks out for you, and worst of all, continue to flame efforts with your bloody fakes and keep being the mill stone that drags people down.

That piccie is 2 1/2 weeks old, and its real. There is not one tiny single piece of fakery in it, (people here with mad photoshop skills have looked at it) and some person really stuck their neck out to get it for US here on ATS to see. see, US. I consider ATS to be US. Now, heres the torch, take it, and make sure your good for the journey, because I just quit.

[edit on 21/6/06 by MadGreebo]

He works all over as he is in the RAF, I opened the image while he was on the phone and he said he swears it passed overhead and came from a nearly base and just carried on, he saw it coming from a distance away and took several shots, this one being the least blurred. He hasn't seen one before he went on his current short term detachment (Western USA) but he's seen it about four or five times since he arrived.

This *should* be very exciting but I'm not so sure after Jim's post

umm waynos the undercarriage pictured has the ED from edwards on it and its also on the same "incorrect" angle that the ED was stenciled on for spirt of new york. look here at www.richard-seamam.com... go about 3 pictures down till its shows the landing gear doors.

This one was actually simpler. He took a high resolution shot and cut it in half. Mirrored the half and pasted them together. If you look at the center you can see the oval he used to paste the markings in place.

MadGreebo just stay cool but things are starting to pop up ok. This image can be recreated but that doesn't prove it fake! Im starting to slide on how probable i find it due to the iamges that waynos has posted but don't start crying the maryter ok? i got to leave the convo but i leave it in your guys campable hands. Best of luck till i can check in again.
Canada_EH

ok ok so my retirement is short lived but i was mulling over the reason why it was escorted around airshows - So no one could get an audio foot print of the B-2 Bomber in Flight. piccie taker said they heard not much noise for TWO planes - bloody hell of course it actually makes sense and your escorting piccie is the key. If its near on silent or extremely quiet, wouldnt you want aircraft noise as it took off / landed / flew over any areas it potentialy could be seen? The last thing you'd want is any upgrade / modification that reduced the aural signature dramaticaly being flung around the web / airspace magazines if accidently sighted / taped.

Imagine the banner head line.

US Airforce DO have near silent aircraft.... then the stampede to get it on tape would start.........

Cheers folks. Now, I have my answer for me, go whistle for your own.

[edit on 21/6/06 by MadGreebo]

*cough* Cut 'n' shut!


www.richard-seaman.com...

[edit on 21/6/06 by Dew]

to expand a little on my previously rather short post - I think the shot Waynos posted is far too similar to the shot posted on the above site (B2LandingGearDown2.jpg) although it obviously has it's gear up rather than down. The angle of the photographer to plane looks subtly different (if you compare leading edge angles), so maybe it was a different pass with gear up taken from a similar position, with the plane in a similar position. It's almost certainly Edwards.
If you look at the red area on the starboard wing, there are 2 patterns of 5 lighter grey 'blobs'. These are also present on the B2 shot.
If you look at the vee tail of the 'fake', there are 2 grey areas almost on centre line. Now compare that to the starboard vee of the B2 (not the tail vee) and the 2 blobs are there too.
I'm sure the shot is a sectioned B-2, but it's rather well done!

[edit on 21/6/06 by Dew]