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.

 

no idea what so ever.

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 03:32 PM
link   
Oh for frigs sake look what the htreads descended into now.....a blooming out 'special effects' each other. Great, blooming great.



Should all be real proud of yourselves.




posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 03:43 PM
link   
Good finds Canada EH and Dew
There are certainly some uncanny similarities there. Thanks Ade


I suppose the last hope would be something based on B-2 tech and design for a different role but I'm curious about C_EH's point about the stencilling. Is this a unique identity point or might it have been repeated elsewhere? A concrete answer to this question should help gain a better understanding. (and I might wipe all those Dr Who DVD's Ive been saving!, what do you think about that my friend!!!)

[edit on 21-6-2006 by waynos]



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 03:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by MadGreebo
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]


What did you expect? You are posting this on a conspiracy site not an aircraft site. People are going to question everything that is posted here. I have no proof to the authenticity of your picture and can't say one way or another. I was trying to point out with the lack of detail in the picture how easy it would be to fake it. At least one person here bought into my fake. When the compairison photo was posted the simularity was too great for me not to comment on. If you expected anything else, maybe you posted this in the wrong place.


Dew

posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 04:19 PM
link   
Well spotted on the ED on the doors b.t.w. Canada_EH! On the ball!

I still think Madgreebo's pic is interesting - I'm not convinced either way really!

[edit on 21/6/06 by Dew]



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 04:32 PM
link   
with all this talk of fakes I decided to have a go myself, I made this out of the picture on C_EH's link earlier in the thread. Its not as good as the last one my mate sent me and it in no way reflects on greebo's picture but I offer it for entertainment value and comparison with the original shot.




[edit on 21-6-2006 by waynos]



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 04:44 PM
link   
Fair enough.

www.hitechweb.szm.sk...

look at the shorter, fatter mini B-2 (Northrop ATA). and then the models of the various saw tooth designs.

And keep on looking at senior peg and senior Ice. Now its all good, make all the fakes you want, because hell, its a free world and you put effort into them - No one still has said any thing about the escort for aural signature supresion or defence of the sonic footprint......guess fakes are better fun hey?!


Ive read for years about 'mini' B-2's, and the concept even looks cool especially during and just after gulf war 1...what I will say about my picture from the taker - none of you can match the length / width / body shape in your fakes - or get the escort aircraft / Craft distance right. those pictures are extremely similar, but they vary in the most telling of ways - Yet still its damn annoying that even with a blooming plane missing your all happy to scream it down....

I stand by mine 100% - Its real, its flying, and we actually have a pic of it.

[edit on 21/6/06 by MadGreebo]



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Canada_EH
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.


They changed the design because it wasn't nearly as stable in low altitude turbulence. It worked just fine at altitude, but when they came down, it was too rough a ride.



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 04:59 PM
link   
Damn I just knew I had the answers but wasn't looking hard enough.

aviationnow.com.../07073news.xml

Please read, as i know its not proof at all of anything else aopart from the fact that they have been flying one off / unique craft in combat over Iraq since 2003...now thats alot of time to develope your kit....

Lockheed DO HAVE a new adapted tier III darkstar platform - Remember in my SR-71 thread I said about this as well?? It even caused U2 pilots concern because of its size and mission.... Damn man their hiding in plain site and in the skys above a war zone full of Journalists and still no piccies???...so Quatar or Garcia...awesome stuff people. They are hiding kit from us...

These are test bed craft, and it clearly states that boeings is modular to fit tails / wings/ noses ect.... Damn I knew I just knew that link had to be live on the web some place..... Iraq, diego Garcia, a very short flight away from both iraq and Afghanistan..... yep im standing 100% by my piccie and im betting my shirt its a new combat UCAV prototype hence the escort of a manned flight.





[edit on 21/6/06 by MadGreebo]



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 05:08 PM
link   
Good link Greebo, has loads of great windtunnel and prototype photos.

Lets not get overdefensive though, just because the thread hasn't gone the way you wanted it to. We assumed that you weren't faking and we discussed the photo for a good couple of pages before anyone even suggested that it could possibly be fake, thats more than most threads get. The PS that waynos posted was actually in support of your posts. I also supported you in saying that the comparison I posted was NOT a suggestion that it was fake and that while I was making the montage I found the aircraft shapes and perspectives not to match up.

I'm not sure about your aural suppression theory, I'm sure if someone wanted to find a B-2 flying alone it would be possible as long as they have time and money. Has anyone ever seen a B-2 alone? Just how quite is it?

I think the 3 photos that waynos posted were also quite interesting but since they came from the same source they too could be PS.

Your news article states "It has the hull form of the DarkStar, only it's bigger" and this clearly doesnt match either this photo or have anything to do with the blackbird thread as far as I can tell.

To be honest I don't really have much to say on the topic other than I don't really know what it is, and the photo isn't of high enough quality to determine everything. Yes it's possible that its a UAV or a manned bomber that has built on B-2 technology but we don't have any indication of size or any details of the aircraft other than a bare outline.

[edit on 21/6/06 by gfad]



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 05:14 PM
link   
GFAD, every one, thank you for your input and time.

I have learnt some new stuff today, and found some old stuff that was on the tip of my tounge and needed to be found again.

I'm aware that the piccie is not great, but I also appreciate the fact that with enough time / brain you can fake any thing.

aviationnow.com.../07073news.xml

This link just gave me what i needed. They are hiding secret advanced kit out there. Cool.


[edit on 21/6/06 by MadGreebo]



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 05:21 PM
link   
I've seen several B-2s flying alone at airshows and other naming ceremonies. You don't hear them until they're right on top of you. The B-2 and F-117 use a baffle system to suppress the noise of the exhaust. If a B-2 went over head at higher than 1000 feet I almost guarantee you AREN'T going to hear it. They went over me at less than 500 feet and I BARELY heard them.



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 05:22 PM
link   
Would that Dark Star derivative be externally redesigned?

I read in a report about BAE's 6 UAV demonstrators (Kestrel, Corax, Raven, HERTI-1D (jet) and HERTI-1A (piston) plus one as yet unidentified) this line in a section talking about the Corax;

"Unlike the US Darkstar UAV, one of which pitched up and over onto its back on take off, Corax is reported to have flown effortlessly"

I suppose this was why ther Darkstar was called 'unsuitable for service'?



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 05:35 PM
link   
I have no idea, but if it was up within a couple of miles of the U2 craft, close enough for them to be unhappy, it must be a good piece of kit....

The piccie, those links, and that quartz tier III+ piccie (Model) was a bonus.

I am really glad people responded, as ok it didnt go the way i wanted, but its got to a point where good stuffs being bandied about. (Waynos, promises on that piccie - it is 100% genuine )



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 07:16 PM
link   
There are other reasons for escort planes other than sound. If it a stealth aircraft off on a mission from DG, then OPSEC demands no comm departures. This obviously poses problems for primary radars for ATC, as well as other traffic (I know that a problem in the Gulf was departure and recovery of LO platforms because fighter radars couldn't pick them up, and they weren't squawking IFF). So the escort can be used to provide a measure of traffic measurement because the escort will be squawking, and will show up on radar, ensuring a stealthy departure for the LO platform.



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 07:40 PM
link   
Overlapped images.




posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 09:39 PM
link   
I call photoshopped picture. The wing looks very similar to the design studies that Northrop had for the B-2 before they redesigned the wing for low-level flight. Someone just wanted to keep the flight community on its toes.



posted on Jun, 21 2006 @ 09:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Enkidu
Overlapped images.



I'd say that's pretty darned close.
I can't see a UCAV being the same size as a B-2. What would be the point? You'd have a B-2 again.



posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 07:55 AM
link   
Could the accompying aircraft be there for air traffic control purposes? I mean if you are flying a stealth aircraft through congested airspace it would help if Air Traffic Control had something that would show up on their scopes. I know that transponders are used for this, but if you were trying to keep this secret then having another plane there with a transponder would be the safe way to go, especially if the transponder hasn't been installed in the stealth aircraft yet.



posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 07:58 AM
link   
Well I'm back and you guys have had lots more good information come up and it may take me a bit to short through it all. As for the image waynos of the ED on the landgear door being from edwards there is no question in my mind that the one pic is a fake. look at this link for the ED
www.richard-seaman.com...
look at the 2nd and 3rd picture where in the discription he even explains the stenciling for the Spirt of New York.
As for the info the madgreebo pulled it deffently has me thinking. Also thanks Zaphod for the reasoning behind why they changed the design. I had been reading that mid way through the projetc they changed requirements to have low level as one of the B-2 roles. Now if we are looking at a recon or high alt plane this configureation would work correct? This pic would go to give even more creadablity to the link that Madgreebo found here:
aviationnow.com.../07073news.xml ]
The pictures of models that he found of the same configureation also helps visualize what this plane "COULD" be. Im still undesided as to if its real or now as is the normal problem when your dealing with black projects but I do feel more informed. So I'll echo MadGreebo's thanks to all for your imput. 1 liners of "its a fake" dont help prove anything, but thankfully people for the most part are staying away from that.



posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 08:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by JIMC5499
Could the accompying aircraft be there for air traffic control purposes? I mean if you are flying a stealth aircraft through congested airspace it would help if Air Traffic Control had something that would show up on their scopes. I know that transponders are used for this, but if you were trying to keep this secret then having another plane there with a transponder would be the safe way to go, especially if the transponder hasn't been installed in the stealth aircraft yet.

I was thinking the same thing JIM. If these picture was taken in transtion when the B-2 like plane is enroute back to the base or heading out the chase plane maybe helpful, espesally if the where shaking out the plane. If its a UCAV then it may also help if a pilot is up with the plane to let the controllers know if somethign looks wrong. I looks like we are on the smae page here JIM
we may actually get somewhere with this thread



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join