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.

 

Invisible Aircraft ?

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 15 2006 @ 04:33 PM
link   
Invisible Aircraft ?

As a Follow up to my earlier thread , regards the sudden appearance of multiple light aircraft above my town . This morning I went out with a camera , looking for them – and in typical fashion – not one light aircraft to be seen – sheesh it’s a conspiracy

But I did spot this :

Flying south , estimated SSE @ high altitude

Location of sighting is as previous :

Clitheroe , Lancashire , UK [ 53 52 24 N , 2 23 42 48 W ]

Time was 04:50 .

Here are the files :

imageshack_file_1705

imageshack_file_1706

The 4 > 2 contrail caught my attention as soon as I saw it , also the dark appearance of the #3 leg [ counted from left ] this was visible from naked eye

It seemed odd at the time that I could not see any sign of the plane with trusty mk 1 eyeball

But even on the computer , I can see no sign of it

As I was both behind and below , I was prepared for the aircraft to be partially obscured by its own trail – but I can see nothing – even @ the highest zoom using irfanview .

I have tried tweaking the contrast – and using false colour – to attempt to make the plane appear – but , as of yet – nothing .

Possibilities already explored , are :

1 ) 4 fighters in tight formation

2 ) a B52 with an engine in trouble

Farnborough airshow starts on the 17th – but I have not seen any other obviously irregular traffic @ hi altitude .

Ideas ???

Lastly this is just a reference shot – to show that my camera is perfectly capable of capturing an identifiable image of an aircraft @ hi altitude

imageshack_file1636

All exfil data should be present and correct – and no image has been edited in anyway .




posted on Jul, 15 2006 @ 09:50 PM
link   
I think you've taken a photograph of a single aircraft, mainly because the contrails start on the exact same line and they form up to make two lines:



Examples of this can be found here and here.

I am not really sure why the airplane is not visible. Perhaps it was hidden by freak cloudbank, and the start of the contrails are sticking out perhaps 50 metres, as they are in picture two?

I doubt that they would fly top secret invisible aircraft around in daylight, but I suppose you can never be to sure.

Just thinking, if they were to attempt to make an aircraft invisible, they would most likely have to install the systems on a massive 4 engined plane, instead of some fighter, for testing.



posted on Jul, 15 2006 @ 10:25 PM
link   
I honestly cant figure this out. I took it to photoshop and played around for a bit and could figure out nothing. It looks like the contrail for a 4 engine aircraft, I agree with watch_the_rocks they do some to be in-line like a 4 engine air craft. Yet I can only imagine it was a flight of 4 smaller aircraft because of no visible air plane. Or you have a picture of something that is invisible
.

Something deffently fishy about this but I can not figure it out.



posted on Jul, 15 2006 @ 10:40 PM
link   
I think the aircraft is just out of range for your camera.

Check out the Bird of Prey built by Boeing on google images.

It has the ability to mirror the sky above the aircraft to the bottom of the aircraft so when you look up it looks like the sky.

The name cracks me up since it was the Klingon starships that could cloak themselves.

www.aerofiles.com...



posted on Jul, 15 2006 @ 10:41 PM
link   
The plane seems to have the same albido as the sky, therefore it is hard or impossible to spot. The moon sometimes apears like that in the day.



posted on Jul, 15 2006 @ 11:55 PM
link   
Ignorant_ape,

Very strange pic's indeed. I was looking hard to find something in front of those contrail's, but nothing, like everyone else that has tried with these pic's.
One thign that struck me while trying to figure it out, "What ifthe Military was test flying a supposed "Invisible" application of a bomber, and something happened to the engine's in your line of view?" Just a thought.



posted on Jul, 16 2006 @ 01:04 AM
link   
Surely, this must be the aircraft that you didn't see:






posted on Jul, 16 2006 @ 04:21 AM
link   
ignorant_ape, one of my mates filmed something exactly like this a few years ago! Except it was just one white trail.. it was moving very fast across the sky...and there was no aircraft visible..even though he zoomed in with the camera and he could't here any engine noise!!

I was thinking.. i know it's a long shot..but maybe the contrails you photographed were from the red arrows? I mean i know they've been doing a few displays over the last few weeks and they will fly in a tight formation..

I'll try and get hold of that video!



posted on Jul, 16 2006 @ 04:31 AM
link   
its probably a long shot, but isnt it possible that the civil aviation authority (or air traffic control somewhere) would know what was flying over that area at that date & time.

perhaps you should approach them to see if they know what it was. im sure they'd be interested (unofficially) in your photos



posted on Jul, 16 2006 @ 05:35 AM
link   
I do not believe that those contrails were formed by a tightly grouped formation of small jets, mainly because of the contrail shape.

Here, here, here, and here are examples of aircraft flying very closely together, and yet all contrails are independent of each other. There is no vortexing.

This, this and this are photographs of the USN Blue Angels flying in close formation, and there is no vortexing visible. At first I thought that those two outer contrails could be planes pulling out of the formation, but as both of IAs photos show the same trails, that rules that theory out.

I have been looking around for similar contrails, but with no luck so far. A B-52's contrails are also dead straight. This was my first choice because of the engine pods. I was thinking that the engines' being so close together would have some effect on the contrails, but nope.

I just sent an email to a guy that is interested in contrails, hoping he could help me ID the aircraft. If he gets back to me I'll post.



posted on Jul, 16 2006 @ 05:49 AM
link   
Looking at the layout of the contrails I'd say that you've phtographed one of the following.

1. A C-5 Galaxy
2. A 747

Judging by the dispesal of the contrails I'd plump for the Galaxy, the Fuselage "bumps" would produce the necessary vortex to kink the trails, and if it was painted in typical low-vis grey it would be very difficult to spot at altitude under the right conditions (its why they paint them that way!)

Anyway, this is the plane and colour scheme I'm on about


www.air-and-space.com...


I'm also fairly sure I can make out a rough shape of the plane ahead of the contrails, but that could just be simulcra.



posted on Jul, 16 2006 @ 05:59 AM
link   
it kinda reminds me of the footage of the shuttle burning up on reentry.I'm not saying it is something like that, just that's what my first impression was.



posted on Jul, 16 2006 @ 06:29 AM
link   
I've looked at every picture of a C-5 I can find, and not even one has a hint of a contrail showing. The C-5 uses GE-CF6-50 high-bypass turbofan jet engine, which would reduce the visible contrail as far as my working out goes, as less fuel is burnt in relation to the amount of gasses ejected out the back. Even photos of the galaxy operating at high altitude show no evidence of contrails, even though that is hardly anything to go by.

IA, is it possible that you took a photo of a two engined aircraft with camo paintjob dumping fuel? Was it heading for an airfield that could support medium/heavy aircraft?



posted on Jul, 16 2006 @ 06:32 AM
link   
hi all - thanks for all the great replies :

first off -- i have emailed staff @ flight international magazine [ the biggest in the uk ] so hopefully by close of business tommorrow i might have a reply

thats assuming they dont file me with the loons for babbling about " invisible planes " -- lol

kudos to member JUSTYC for inspiration for doing that

ON_YUR_6 and NEFORMORE :

the lo_vis

the C_5 makes particular sense -- as i am under the impression that a plain flying in for farnborough could very possibly over fly me on its way from the US

of course the " odd " discharge of the [ presumably ] starboard inner engine would be a big aid in identification

how would we find out of an inbound plane had some engine trouble ???

i agree with W_T_R : the idea of a display team is very unlikley -- it was 04:50 , and the red arrows use -- rather obviously BRIGHT RED hawk jets .

CLASHROCK : i am partially deaf and thus have no idea if it was making any sound -- sorry

but as for speed -- it was deffinitly doing 4oo kt - give or take


PYLE : glad to know you cannot see a plane either -- its good to know i am not loosing my mind


W_T_R :

it was insanely early -- whem most sensible people are tucked up in bed -- but still its borad daylight over a very populous and small island .


the only issue with " stealth " is even ignoring the different exhaust from a presumably misbehaving engine

it left a stonking HUGE contriail -- which pretty much negates any lo vis measures

the military has had technology to suppress contrail formation for years -- the B52 had a system -- and allegedly the f117 / B2 have zero visible trails

if they want to reduce visibility -- the trails is the first thing you must adress IMHO


any other ideas -- keep em coming


APE OUT


GSA

posted on Jul, 16 2006 @ 06:43 AM
link   
209.165.152.119...

Heres a mundane possibilty.

It has the four into two contrail pattern, a darker inside contrail, but has a very visible airplane.

Not as dramatic as apes picture, which I think is really cool, but a mundane every day airliner flying very high in colder air.

I still think the apes pictures really interesting though.


GSA

posted on Jul, 16 2006 @ 07:01 AM
link   
www.strangemilitary.com...

here is another very high altitude contrail picture (Close up) with all of the effects of apes picture, including the billowing / blooming of the trail into two.

Maybe the plane was just at such a high altitude that an unzoomed lense couldnt pick up the aircraft involved.



posted on Jul, 16 2006 @ 08:38 AM
link   
GSA, if you looked at my first post I linked to both of your pictures.

btw all three are the exact same pic. Please look around in future, aye mate?



posted on Jul, 16 2006 @ 10:24 AM
link   
We quite often get that effect with airliners coming over (I'm in London), where you can see the contrail but not the plane. It usually only lasts for a matter of seconds, though sometimes it lasts for quite a while.

I assume it's to do with the exact angle of lighting - an aircraft can appear light against the sky one moment and then dark the next. Presumably in between it's impossible to pick out.



posted on Jul, 16 2006 @ 10:40 AM
link   
can a C-5 galaxy contrail in flight ?

yes it can -- at least the L-500 variant C-5A can evidence

obviously conditions in spain , 2004 - and the UK , 2006 vary but it does happen given the requisite conditions .

i guess given the " correct " atmopheric pressure , humidity , temperature etc you will see vapour trails from any conventional jet engine


W_T_R :


IA, is it possible that you took a photo of a two engined aircraft with camo paintjob dumping fuel? Was it heading for an airfield that could support medium/heavy aircraft?


it is possible - but IMHO unlikley -- the plane was on a straight and level heading , and its trail extended back to my visible horizon -- and after the pircture -- continued on to the horizon -- with no percieved deviations in heading or altitude

also - 3 of the 4 legs of the trail are consistent , its only inner starboard engine that is producing a darkened exhaust [ assumimig a 4 engine A/C] and all 4 legs are of similar volume

i will have to check on just what runways would accept a militay aircfaft in trouble

the nearest that springs to mind would be Blackpool - SPEKE - but the aircraft had just flown past that [ its 40miles WNW ]

BAE Samlesbury is closer [ 12 miles ] -- but it only really operates to service the aircraft factories -- and local flying clubs , i am not sure what emergency facilities it has -- i would guess rudimentary

but nice idea



posted on Jul, 16 2006 @ 05:07 PM
link   
As you can clearly see, it is pretty obvious that it was not a C-5:



There is a different space between the inboard engines, and the outer contrails flare to the sides instead of going stright. Another sort of aircraft caused this. And as far as I see, all commercial aircraft also have dead-stright contrails.

Gets me


ps. Mr. Ape you now owe me ten minutes of your life!



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join