It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Cloaked B2 on GE?

page: 1

log in


posted on Nov, 30 2006 @ 06:44 PM
This came up on Google Sightseeing:

Hmm! Coincidink? Maybe! Probably really, but it does look like a high-flying B2 on it's left side a bit, eh? Maybe we don't know our own cloaking technology!

Thought I'd share. It is more than likely just the way the image was put together, but it makes for a good invisible aircraft!

posted on Nov, 30 2006 @ 06:49 PM
ermmm, interesting.

it sor of looks like a picture of a B-2 taken from beneath the plane. It looks alot like a shadow.

I thought the new cloaking technology works only in the microwave wavelength, not visible light.

Of course the military has probably had something like it for awhile now.

[edit on 30-11-2006 by XphilesPhan]

posted on Nov, 30 2006 @ 06:59 PM
Ok, looks cool. I had to zoom out, then back in, to find it.
I'm no guru, or even a worm on photo-shop. But, it looks fake, to me. (JMO)
Anyway, cool pic.

Just my 2 cent,

posted on Nov, 30 2006 @ 07:00 PM
This is another flying car thing, it cant possibly be a B-2, the shape is not exactly symmetrical and it cant be a shadow, unless the B-2 is a mile long. It's either just one of those freak things, or someone messed with the brightness in that area or who knows what but it's not related to a B-2.

posted on Nov, 30 2006 @ 07:00 PM
I'm wondering if this might not be better researched on the Aliens and UFO's forum.

It put me in mind of the Phoenix UFO right away.

Read these descriptions and tell me that shadow doesn't compare...

The object, or formation of objects, was extremely large, perhaps a kilometer in length.


1) Perhaps thousands, or tens of thousands, of witnesses on the ground witnessed at least one object pass and/or hover overhead which they described as being huge, gigantic, or unimaginably large. Many of the witnesses reported that they had the impression that a Boeing 747 could land on the back of the object they had just witnessed pass overhead their location.

2) Most witnesses described the object as being generally triangular in shape, with anywhere from five, to "many, innumerable," lights on the leading edge of the object. Some observers reported that the pattern of lights consisted of three lights clustered near the "nose" of the object, with one light on each of the trailing tips of the triangle. Other individuals reported an object that appeared to have seven large lights equally spaced along its leading edge.

[edit on 30/11/06 by masqua]

posted on Nov, 30 2006 @ 07:12 PM
I do understand the OP's point.
New cloaking is "supposed" to show what the viewer is supposed to see, if the object isn't there.
In this case, either the aircraft is VERY close to the satellite doing the photography,'s one HUGE B2.


posted on Nov, 30 2006 @ 07:25 PM
seems like too much of a coincidence... The shape of the shadow and the shape of the aircraft seem to match almost idnetically...

Interesting find.

posted on Nov, 30 2006 @ 08:39 PM
Wow that shadow is very interesting. The fact that its not symetrical doesn't mean much when you start to factor in the uneven terrain its being projected on, the position the sun could be in relative to whatever caused it etc...

I was going to make a thread about the B2 @ Edwards in google earth, but never got around to it.

If you click this link

you see can see the 2 thumbnail pics of both a B2 and F117 on the tarmac @ Edwards, but then when you click them to launch google maps they are no where to be found
and I have also looked in google earth but they just aren't there. So how were those pics obtained and why do they no longer show up????

posted on Nov, 30 2006 @ 08:57 PM
That's because those are screenshots from when those two images used to be on GE. I can remember in the summer of 2005 I saw both those images on the real GE just cruising around AF bases in the SW. Now either Google got a new satellite (or more cash) and updated its map since then with new and more high resoultion images or they just periodically update their images anyway. That why those aircraft can no longer be seen.

posted on Dec, 1 2006 @ 05:00 AM
That first image looks like a shadow. It suggests that whoever took the photo was at a lower altitude than the B-2. I thought Google Earth was made up of Sattelite Images.

However, I have doubts about the "Cloak Theory" for one key reason: What's the point of an invisibility cloak that casts a giant shadow? Any interceptor with look down/shoot down capibility could Visually engage the aircraft from above. It would be like sending an all black F-117 on a daylight bombing mission, you are still a target even though you can't be tracked with radar!


Side Note: Shadows are often much bigger than the actual object, depending on how the light falls. You can litterly have a four foot tall person with a Ten foot long shadow! Don't use the shadow to judge size, you might be decieved!

[edit on 1-12-2006 by Ghost01]

posted on Dec, 1 2006 @ 05:24 AM

Originally posted by Ghost01
That first image looks like a shadow. It suggests that whoever took the photo was at a lower altitude than the B-2. I thought Google Earth was made up of Sattelite Images.

Google Earth imagery is taken from whatever source Google can get it - satellite imagery and aerial photography are both used. Google does not own a satellite or any imaging systems, it licenses it from other sources.

Intended for personal, non-commercial use, the free version of Google Earth sends you on an interactive, 3D exploration of the planet through terabytes of aerial and satellite imagery

This just looks like a patchwork in a funny, but not exactly unlikely, pattern.

posted on Dec, 1 2006 @ 05:27 AM
Tim that shadow thing only holds true when you're on the ground I guarantee you a four foot person at 10K will not have a 2 mile long shadow, in fact they wont have a shadow at all. When was the last time you saw a shadow of a 757 passing by a 10? In order for any flying aircraft to have a shadow they will either have to be very close to the ground, (but then the shadow is not very big) or they have to be huge (think miles and miles in size).

posted on Dec, 1 2006 @ 06:19 AM
Im amazed that no one has pointed out the obvious. The shadow is not the same shape as a B-2. A B-2 has 5 sawteeth and the shadow only has 4.

posted on Dec, 1 2006 @ 06:51 AM
Like I said, it's probably the image stitching, not a B-2, but it does look alot like one. If it did happen the be a B-2, then it would either be invisibly cloaked really close to the camera or above the camera and casting a shadow.

The Edwards aircraft disappearing is nothing odd. They were wiped away in the great image update of '06 I believe, like so many others! Well, I just wanted the share. And if you were to get a B-2 to fit in that shadow, it would need to be on it's side.

And the whole microwave-not-visible-light thing...

They used microwaves to create invisibility in visible light. Or started to.

posted on Dec, 1 2006 @ 07:04 AM
If you look at it in google earth the size "wing tip to wingtip" is about 4 miles, front to back about 2 miles on the shadow. It does look like a shadow, with gradual diffraction on the edges like it has gone round an object.

posted on Aug, 7 2008 @ 09:54 PM
I cannot find it..........hmm.... could it have been removed?

new topics


log in