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: 6
0
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 22 2006 @ 07:10 PM
link   
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.



Dew

posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 02:35 AM
link   
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]



posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 05:27 AM
link   
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



posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 05:43 AM
link   
Ok – 2 different pictures – 2 different orientations and supposedly 2 different times and positions .

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

See this comparison image :

img79.imageshack.us...


here is the full size :

FULL

the orientation , angle of bank , lighting etc all seem wrong – if as claimed they show either

a – a craft photographed from the same direction flying inbound and outbound legs

OR

b- a craft photographed at opposite ends of a turn it preformed right above the boat

scenario “ b” is frankly preposterous , and scenario “a” is too dammed convenient

greebo was caught cropping and misrepresenting images in his last thread --- so it begs the question --- where and when were these shots taken

because taking them at face value , makes ZERO sense to me

but editing an misrepresentation does .

One last point – my final question is why is one a jpg and the other a bmp – I have just noticed that the original imageshack files and one is PNG not BMP it just saved to my comp that way

Of course PNG is an adobe native format , for ……… EDITING


Does any camera save as png ??????

Hmmm --- weirdness



edits -- damed bb-code




[edit on 23-6-2006 by ignorant_ape]

Mod Edit: Image Size – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 23/6/2006 by Mirthful Me]



posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 05:58 AM
link   

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


Dew

posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 06:06 AM
link   

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.



posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 06:48 AM
link   
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]



posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 06:56 AM
link   
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?





posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 08:26 AM
link   

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.



posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 05:29 PM
link   
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.



posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 05:39 PM
link   
www.iwasabducted.com...


heres the story and the site these pictures are posted upon.

I posted these about 6 months ago and the thread bombed - hope they get some good discussion going about the good old old TR3B Locust!


jra

posted on Jun, 23 2006 @ 07:45 PM
link   

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 ???

See this comparison image :

img79.imageshack.us...


I noticed that as well yesterday when looking at the pics. Glad some one else noticed too.


Of course PNG is an adobe native format , for ……… EDITING


Does any camera save as png ??????


Actually .png isn't an adobe native format. It's a file format ment to replace .gif file formats. I think you were thinking of .psd, which is an adobe format.

And as far as I know, no camera's save as .png... maybe some odd uncommon camera does. I'd have to look it up. But using .png wouldn't be wise anyway. .jpg is better than .png for photographs.



posted on Jun, 25 2006 @ 05:53 PM
link   
img333.imageshack.us...


For all of your comments about the pictures I thank you for your time and thoughts - The validity of these images are some thing I do not doubt, but it seems that many here do, and that is what this sites all about - I know i got scorched with the black bird thread, and yes it annoyed many people - The irony is to release the picture it would have to be altered dramaticaly and then i'd get called all the names under the sun. Irony or what.


Well, you'll be glad to know that I am in the process of moving house to Yorkshire, and i have no intention of taking my PC with me (Sold it to the people moving into my old house) . SO, that means I will not get to share alot of stuff with you all ( that may make many happy, some it will not! )

Oh and as its my last post, i'll share some thing with you that only very few knew.

For the last 8 years i have travelled Europe wide as an investigator of many different aspects of the UFO /Black world research community, and have a massive amount of material and contacts to call upon for information. Some of this information is good, some bad, some half truth, some untruths and some truth mixed with untruths but that is the way of life. Now i am going back into full time education, searching for the answers doesn't seem important any more.

Oh and for the name of this aircraft I have a feeling its called Senior Ray.

img149.imageshack.us...
This above picture is 5 years old and i do not know any thing about where / who / what / how.



[edit on 25/6/06 by MadGreebo]



posted on Jun, 26 2006 @ 05:05 AM
link   

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



posted on Jun, 26 2006 @ 05:13 AM
link   
Don't worry Tim, I was wrong once too



posted on Jun, 26 2006 @ 08:28 AM
link   
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



posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 05:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by MadGreebo
Oh and for the name of this aircraft I have a feeling its called Senior Ray.

img149.imageshack.us...
This above picture is 5 years old and i do not know any thing about where / who / what / how.
[edit on 25/6/06 by MadGreebo]


I'm not aware of anything called Senior Ray! The Advance Technology Bomber/ Stealth Bomber program used the code name Senior Ice. I'm courious, where did you get the name Senior Ray? Maybe you sumbled onto another Black Pogram!

Tim


GSA

posted on Jun, 30 2006 @ 10:22 PM
link   
I'm probably way too late to post these as it seems the person who started the thread has left but as an air cadet many many moons ago I had a book about planes of the future. I searched and searched for these images on the web, and have finally found them. Hope they are of some help, but if its too late sorry : )

img301.imageshack.us...
This first image is a modern US nay version I think (Not sure 100% though)

img426.imageshack.us...

img442.imageshack.us...

the above two are related to the UCAV program in the UK / US and the FOAS.

I know the book pictures pictures are not real / artists impressions, but the first image in this thread (the grainy one) looks very similar to the UK FOAS drawing.

[edit on 30/6/06 by GSA]



posted on Jul, 1 2006 @ 04:34 AM
link   
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.


GSA

posted on Jul, 1 2006 @ 06:48 AM
link   
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?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join