Can Someone debunk this anti-gravity rotorless helicopter?

It look's a little fishy, I'm not an expert, but I can't see any photoshop evidence, maybe you can.


www.laserway.com...

tail number X51 looks photoshopped

and why would they put the number on there in the first place if it's classified......

I don't know. Here is another image of one of the test craft:




why use the helicopter design?

Here is the homepage.

www.laserway.com...

it is the x-51. Gotta run...late for work.

I used inverted colors and the x51 does look suspicious, but the trees arent affected by the possible rotor removal and I dont see a rotor shadow. the top of the green helo is a bit blurry, so I dont know about that, or that website, the website is really goofy

I am by no means an expert on photo manipulation or image forensics, but these two images are so blatantly photoshopped that it is unmistakable to the naked (and untrained) eye.

Yeah that's what I wanna know, why would they use the helicopter design?

But yeah in the first photo the x-51 painted on the tail looks photoshopped.

I'm sure there are better "anti-gravity" designs out there than an old helicopter.

[edit on 15-7-2008 by theendisnear69]

Not to mention that if this WAS a classified project, I doubt there would be a web site about it all as you have posted.

Ok, I see it now. The picture was taken further back so the rotors would fit, It looks weird because the rotors were removed and now the helo looks distant. dr drr drrr

an 8yr old.. could of done a better job... oh. is that a one liner.. ?? sorry.. ill try and do better next time.. (grin)

check out the link left a few posts above this one. they have a web site and everything. too bad they have not been able to video the thing in flight and put those moving images on the site. They do claim to have a free energy machine.

Iknow, I posted this pic a little too quickly but atleast you can all see the goofy wesite and try a nd disprove more stuuf theyve posted up there. They did to a pretty good job on the red x51 except for a few things, but the green one looks rediculous, almost as bad as the mummy 2's cgi,ohh!

They may be testing an anti-gravity system on a helicopter body, but as someone stated, why use a helicopter?

If this does use anti-gravity, there would be no need for a tail on it also. Unless it's so anyone who sees it from a distance won't be suspicious. But then why is it on the web?

I think i'll just stay undecided on this so I don't burn my brain out...

reply to post by QBSneak000

---

my thoughts exactly!! their is no way that this would be up on a web page...and it also says at least in the picture that its at area 51...anyone else notice the lush trees and background? I didnt know area 51 had such lush forestry in the landscape

Good Day
Skept!cal

The website was created in 1998. At least that part is true.
I do have doubts about some of the claims on the web site and the fact that this thing just sits there. I have a car that does that. Can I claim it is antigravity?

I'm going to put this as nicely as I can...As someone who does a lot of image work, I can say that both of those show evidence (quite abundantly) of being modified.

Indeed the pics look modified but without even thinking at that...

They claim to have made a testflight, but where are the pics viewing the craft from the outside?

edit - spelling

[edit on 15-7-2008 by Grey Magic]

Why have a tail
The tail on helicopters hold a small rotor to stop the turning motion caused on the body by the main rotors (if you take them out, the helicopter starts spinning).

Pictures of... heliocopters. Whelp, I'm convinced, yuo convinced?
Oh yeah, the horsey, puppy, and kitty, made it solid for me.

Either this web page belongs to a nut, or is maintained by someone who is part of think tank somewhere other than A51, and is deliberately kept track of what they are allowed to post.
I knbow what I believe.

I noticed that in the first picture, the three discs or whatever they are all have exaclty the same reflections, which never happens, there would be at least one tiny difference.

Just a few thoughts:
I am guessing that a new anti-grav propulsion system would not be constrained by aerodynamics. Hence, using an aircraft structure would be unneeded and (I think) complicate the design tremendously.

On the other hand, if I am bass-ackwards and aerodynamics still apply while in an atmosphere - why use a helicopter body? If the propulsion system were anti-grav, I would guess it would be capable of almost any manover while "flying". Wouldn't a sphere, or "ball" be a better choice?

Further, until you proved the system somewhat reliable, would the 'body' that it's contained in matter at all? Meaning, wouldn't it be more likely the new propulsion system would look like "machinery" on - say - a large pallet for proof of concept tests?

Honestly, I have no idea. Interesting pictures and fun to talk about.