Yeah, its a strange one., Its unfortunate that the blurring makes it so hard to interpret the colouring and shading, but I suppose it was unavoidable.

Madgreebo - hope you don't mind - I've just adjusted the gamma/contrast to try and cut the haze out of your shots a little. Hope it clarifies them a bit. I'll take 'em down if you want.






It's hard to tell about the colours - from the pictures I would think it's just the sun, but if it was changing then that's a different story!

[edit on 23/6/06 by Dew]

Why do photobucket always reduce the quality of the uploaded pictures? (well obviously to save space - but it sucks!). I've just compared the original image uploaded to that shown now, and there's not nearly as much jpeg compression artefacts.

[edit on 23/6/06 by Dew]

Dew I have no problem at all with any one using / enhancing the pictures. Just don't add / delete any thing from them -

To be honest, they were posted for people to see and mull over. The fact that they are enhanced now and alot sharper is really cool actually, so thanks you for the work

Originally posted by JIMC5499
Must be a couple of these things flying around.

I've seen this before! this was the origional B-2 design. The single point in the back is from when the Air Force hadn't added the low altitude capiblity yet. Unless I'm wrong, it looks like it's smaller then the regular B-2 based on the apperent scale of the T-38 with it. If this is the case, could it be a flying version of the Nothrop proposal for the A-12 contract or even a subscale model of the B-2? there were romors of a 1/2 scale version of the B-2 flying from Groom Lake in the Earily 1980's. I know many people have said the B-2 wasn't at Area 51, but still the reports from 1984 to about 1987 or early 1988 sound credible. If so, what do you think they are using it for now?

Tim

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
Ok – 2 different pictures – 2 different orientations and supposedly 2 different times and positions .

So why are shadows and highlights dammed near identical ???

I agree the highlights and shadows are very similar, if not identical, but I did notice when increasing the cointrast of the images, that the first (flying left>right) appears to be heading towards a cloud, but the other shows no area there.

Tim, JimC already told us that he edited a photo of a B-2 to create that image.

Moving on, The large detailed image I posted earlier on is defintely an edited B-2 image, my mate has apologised in an email for making me look daft. *so thats all right then*

However he added that the first three were genuine and he sent me the big one because he got 'a bit carried away' and that all the guesses about cloning and pasting half a picture of a B-2 to create the earlier ones are way off beam, but he did edit out the centre section of a B-2 and shortened the span to match on the big photo.

Even though he has admitted faking the WOW picture I still have a hard time thinknig he isn't just trying to squeeze a bit more mileage out of the earlier ones, even though the last one of those three has really intrigued me.

As he said, 'I just tried to give you a bit extra but I know I ruined the impact the first pics had by going too far, sorry'.





[edit on 23-6-2006 by waynos]

Moving on, and definitely not from my RAF 'source of embarrassment', has anyone seen these pics before and what can you tell me about them?

They appear to show a craft which I am absolutely convinced does not exist so can anyone shed any light?

Originally posted by ghost

Originally posted by JIMC5499
Must be a couple of these things flying around.

I've seen this before! this was the origional B-2 design. The single point in the back is from when the Air Force hadn't added the low altitude capiblity yet. Unless I'm wrong, it looks like it's smaller then the regular B-2 based on the apperent scale of the T-38 with it. If this is the case, could it be a flying version of the Nothrop proposal for the A-12 contract or even a subscale model of the B-2? there were romors of a 1/2 scale version of the B-2 flying from Groom Lake in the Earily 1980's. I know many people have said the B-2 wasn't at Area 51, but still the reports from 1984 to about 1987 or early 1988 sound credible. If so, what do you think they are using it for now?

Tim

Well time If you look back at some of my earlier post I found demensions for the F-16 and the B-2 and compared them as if they where at same alt and there is no real big difference, save for a couple ft ie maybe 10 ft missing providing the same alt assumtion.
As waynos stated this image has been said fact my the poster JIM in order to show how easy it is to create this plane in photoshop or paint. At which point i also went to the image that this original photo could have been photoshoped from and ended up with a fairly similar picture.
Also to all of my study these past couple days i have yet to see or hear or read that the B-2 was ever flowen in that configureation. As it was found to be too unstable at lower alt.

To answer the ape. Those two images were sent at the same time, what files they are are not my discretion, and i stated quit clearly that one was really really blurred....I havent even thought about the angle of the craft or what files they are, i just open them, look at them and post them. I know at the risk of sounding repetative or recieving another warning, didnt you read what i posted??


Oh and yes, I have those piccies from a web site of that triangle - taken by an amature astronomer in america, and there are about a dozen in sequence of it rotating in flight and moving away - a super set of piccies!

Do you want me to post them all because I have them stored in my infraview file.

Originally posted by Canada_EH

Well time If you look back at some of my earlier post I found demensions for the F-16 and the B-2 and compared them as if they where at same alt and there is no real big difference, save for a couple ft ie maybe 10 ft missing providing the same alt assumtion.
As waynos stated this image has been said fact my the poster JIM in order to show how easy it is to create this plane in photoshop or paint. At which point i also went to the image that this original photo could have been photoshoped from and ended up with a fairly similar picture.
Also to all of my study these past couple days i have yet to see or hear or read that the B-2 was ever flowen in that configureation. As it was found to be too unstable at lower alt.

Well, the low altitude requirement wasn't added to the B-2 until later. Origionally the ATB was supposed to be a high altitude bomber.

As for making that with photoshop, that's not surprizing! All you need is an image of the B-2 and the airbrush feature. Fair enough, I not right every time!

Heck, it could have even been a CGI model.

Tim

Don't worry Tim, I was wrong once too

Sorry to hear that your leaven cause at the very least you got some good discissions going on in the forums. and also to put in my last shot id say i doubt the pictures but the possiblities are there for stuff like this and you deffently got me thinking about this stuff.
Take care madgreebo and God speed.
Canada_EH

I live near Whiteman - the B-2 is closer to a nuisance to many here, rather than a wonder. It is kinda freaky to be driving along 50 Highway and have one of those things drop right out of the clouds to land. I do beleive it's 50 .... it could be 65 .... *thinks*...

When I first saw the writing on the underside of the 'closeup' of the aircraft, I wanted to see if someone could use some 'magic' program to allow us to read what was there. On the landing gear doors of every aircraft is the name "Spirit of _____" Although the sheer existance of this writing in the same format as the B-2s is suspicious.

As for the original picture - it's hard to tell. It's so blurry that it could be faked rather easily. It's also blurry enough to be legitimate.

As for the other aircraft - the problem with it being a B-2 is that it's reflective - plus, I've never seen a B-2 banking near that hard aside from when it's showing off for someone. It also has a flat-black coating - not gloss. You don't WANT your enemy to see it.

However, it's quite possible that a new type of RAM has been developed and could be used in conjunction with a new type of optics defeating techniques. A reflective coating would remain black at night, and be visible to a spotlight - however, a quick jink and the airplane 'contorts' into a different shape, and would confuse any optical tracking systems that would be looking for change in direction and velocities. With advancements in global technology - such optical tracking systems for AAA and even SAMs would not be impractical. Optics remain to be the most difficult form of detection to avoid - and a simple solution is not to hide - but to dazzle and confuse.

It could be a messed with image. The first is probably legit. The second appears to be a re-oriented copy. It's hard to make a call. If the second is tampered with - it affects the creidibility of the first one - which is harder to prove/disprove.

If anything - I'd say it were a test of a UAV. Although why that area is so hot for activity, I don't know. There are much more probable places - such as off of a carrier in the middle of the Pacific. Or down in Antarctica - even UFO fanatics will think twice about mounting an expedition to a military base in the middle of a giant block of ice.

The cancelation of an aircraft design concept doesn't do anything to prove that it has been 'really' cancelled. Some programs continue in the black - for whatever reason.

I do like the pictures of some of the Notrhop-Grumman concepts - the one looks like a revamped F-14 - that would have been awesome to see. I'm partial to the F-14 and the YF-23, though...... so, obviously I am very curious about the merger of the two companies that made the 'gods' of the skies.

Hi AIM64.

Im glad i didnt post in a dead thread, because I found these pictures above in my post which look the same as that (Or nearly enough : ) ) and they are from the FOAS project for the united kingdom and the X UCAV series for the US forces.

Im really no judge on pictures / or art work, but the line drawing of the FOAS project really look alot like a scaled down version of what ever it is flying beside / under + beside that chase plane.

Oh and I get the name now, the Phoenix missle for the F-14 Tomcat isn't it?