Is this a top secret plane?

yea i agree with Erasurehead, if the plane was coming at the photographer the tail wouldnt be in the shot. so i say its a F-117 nighthawk as well

i know i shouldnt be double posting but the second pic looks like a aurora....

reply to post by SW phsyco

---

I've looked at both pics as big as they will go, and it's definitely not an F-117. It's all wrong from any angle. I don't know if it's a real project, but there is no doubt in my mind that it definitely is NOT a Nighthawk.

It's been a while since I last logged in to ATS. Let me say again that this aircraft was definitely not an F117. I can see how the first image might look like one, but it is just the angle of the shot.

For those people claiming these pics were taken with a 7mp camera but the pics are only 2mp maybe the op used digital zoom, I have a 10mp digital cam and when I use my 10x digital zoom the pictures turn out to be like 1.8mp the less digital zoom I use the Higher the mp is ie when I don't use any digital zoom or I just use the optical zoom the pics are a true 10mp, when any digital zoom is used the pics tend to be at a lower mp and a poor quality, not clear and tons of jagged edges esp if the image is taken from a distance.

I talked to a guy I know who works for Lockheed. I showed him these pictures and he confirmed that it is a current "black project" being tested. The craft uses similar technology that was used in the famous TR3B triangle (hence the 3 points of light at at the bottom.) The scope of this project , he claimed, is to adapt the TR3B technology into more of a fighter design capable of hypersonic speeds. He also said that these photos must be from a very early test flight, as there have been significant changes to the airframe since these shots were taken.

No defense to these pics but just a bit of common sense to a possible cause of the size.

My canon 400D has 8 different options for pic quality
the best 2 I never use are
Large+RAW
RAW

now the higher the quality the less pics you can continuelys take do to the demand on the memory card, so its a balance of speed vs quality

95% of the time i use medium which has a resolution of 2816x1880 vs large of 3888x2592

So this may be an explination as to the size, but in saying that personally I would use the straight RAW and download direct to PC without any software touching it, then copy it and put the origianl RAW somewhere safe then play with the copy, as the RAW needs to go throuh software to be even able to view it

For those not sure what a untouched RAW file (i think i have this correct) in simple terms its a undeveloped picture from what I understand is that if you have a straight RAW file, it is the real deal or extremely hard to fake.

It seems to have been concluded in this thread

( www.abovetopsecret.com... )

that that craft is a TR-3B, I've experienced one myself about 8-9 years ago while attending at the F.A.E. ( Ecuadorian Air Force ) in Ecuador.

reply to post by f3rm1N

---

Why on earth does that thread conclude anything?

The only absolute conclusions I can draw from this thread are

1. The OP has provided original EXIF data, which shows the file was at least opened or resized in Photoshop Elements (not the pro version of PS, the basic home version) Based on this it may have been edited to add a fake object, or simply resized.

2. The photo's were taken in the vicinity of tonopah/groom, verified by Whitesides Hill in the background.

3. The airframe is definitely not that of an F-117 due to the shape and also the date of the photo being after the last flight of a nighthawk.

OP, could you not copy the file from the camera flash card directly in to an email, or somewhere online without opening it? I understand that even opening a file and resizing in PS Elements would leave a trace on the JPEG stored on your HDD but surely the original on the flash card should be left unchanged? Most people would copy the files from the camera to their HDD before doing anything to them, therefore the original should be intact.



Cheers

Robbie

This made me laugh - so I guess it can operate underwater as well?

Antisubmarine bomber - that brought a tear to my eye.

reply to post by crisko

---

Where do you get "operate underwater" from? You have heard of the P-3 and S-3 right? Both of those have an antisubmarine mission.

reply to post by Zaphod58

---

Well said Zaphod, the Irony of that poster laughing at your post when it was really them making a fool of themselves amused me!#

Cheers

Robbie

we still havent reached a coclusion have we?
still now theres more problems.... one is with the camera the other is with the planes....