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.


Is this a top secret plane?

page: 8
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in


posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 04:47 PM
These pictures are friggin awsome. My vote is on it being "aurora-like" I guess is the way to put it. With the fox news teaser that came out regarding a pulse/jet powered craft capable of mach 10 i'd have to lean more towards 'black' projects from the US gubbernment than any ET technologies.....

Still the similarities are pretty striking. Reminded me the most of these pics from the Belgium triangle sightings.

We're planning a trip out to groom next spring some time. Hopefully our luck is as good! Cool stuff.

posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 05:00 PM

Originally posted by ryant7
reply to post by Zaphod58

it does not matter that it is "retired" they fly in and out to go to airshows and aviation exhibits all the time in my opinion that is what it is

Uh what? Then why the hell are they all sitting in hangars in Tonopah with their liquids drained, their wings off, and in NONFLYABLE condition if they fly in and out of airshows all the time?

You can stand by your opinion, but you are flat wrong. I know with zero doubt in my mind just from looking at the pictures that it is NOT and F-117, and never WILL BE an F-117 no matter how much you swear it is or want it to be.

There were a total of 59 F-117s built between the YF-117 and the F-117. I believe there were 7 lost (1 to combat, 6 to accidents). The other 52 are either in storage or on display somewhere. NONE of them are flying, NONE of them are CAPABLE of flying.

posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 05:08 PM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 05:13 PM

Originally posted by spitefulgod
It definitely ain't CGI the motion blur and AA aren't "perfect" enough to be CGI.

No, these images are CGI.

There is no motion blur, and the Anti-Aliasing on the first image sucks. The edge of the object is to sharp, and the sharpness doesn't match the rest of the image. The pixels of the edge have to much step to them. They should have some blur.

Depth perception is also missing. The focal length seems to be non-existent for the object, but existent for the rest of the images.

This is definitely CGI, and I bet you all the money in the world the OP will not respond to my request to see the original images straight from the camera. Right now the EXIF data is stripped from the images to hide it.

I'm almost certain this is a HOAX.

You people shouldn't believe images until you see where they are from. In this case, a random guy with pictures hosted on Flickr that don't have EXIF data, is very suspicious, it is not a good source.

Flickr was also the place the C2C Drone started.

These images don't look right. I think you all should ask the OP for the original images from the camera.

posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 05:35 PM
I think this should be labeled a hoax unless and until the OP returns with the full size images with EXIF data. Also, hoax or not, this is not nor ever will be an F-117. I wonder at the knowledge of aircraft of anyone who has seen the blowups and still claims this.

posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 05:56 PM
I am so glad this was posted and a mate saw it and told me about this place. That's the thing we saw from the drilling platform while we were moving it in September 2007. I ran to get my camera but the boss said no and then he got the pic which didn't show much but a black smoosh from behind. There was no contrail and no sound. It crossed over us and was out of sight in about 30 seconds moving from West to East over the North Sea.

Awesome. It's the exact same bird. It's big.

posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 05:58 PM
reply to post by ALLis0NE

I agree with AO, definitely CGI.

I did a zoom on the edge and it is pixel level static.

posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 06:04 PM
reply to post by Marcus Calpurnius

I am not trying to leave anyone guessing here. In the first shot, what people are calling the cockpit is actually the craft's left wing. The plane is not moving toward the camera, but is moving away at an angle.

posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 06:04 PM
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.

One additional thing to remember - the more 'hypersonic' the craft the less likely there'd be no motion blur.

As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.

posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 06:16 PM
I am not sure why the images are only 2 megapixels instead of 7. I used my cousin's camera to take these and I had him put the pics on a cd for me. I then took the cd home with me and I took the images off of it. They should be exactly like they were on the cd. Thank you once again for all of you replies!

posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 06:20 PM
reply to post by Badge01

Correct. The faster the plane is moving, the more of a motion blur, unless you had some very VERY expensive equipment, but even then, at high speeds, the best equipment can't capture it.

posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 06:21 PM
Maybe just maybe its this?

Look similar ish though I know nothing about planes and latest jets etc :-)


posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 06:28 PM
reply to post by ampaf707

it looks just like f-117

posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 06:29 PM
I heard no sonic boom so the plane must have stayed subsonic. Oh and 1 more thing, I did some reading today to try and figure out for myself what I took a picture of. I looked at some of the "black triangle" UFOs and this seems to be very similar, especially because of the lights on the plane's belly.

posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 06:35 PM
reply to post by ampaf707

Just because the plane is going subsonic does not mean you will hear it, judging by the distance it appears the said plane would have heard something.

This picture is quickly loosing it's credibility.

posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 06:36 PM
reply to post by ampaf707

Hey ampaf707,

By any chance, can you upload the images from the CD onto IMAGESHACK? doesn't clear EXIF data. It is free also. I would really like to see the original images, the ones on Flickr are clones with missing data.


posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 06:40 PM
These pictures show something that is strikingly similar to the UFO seen over Illinois by a bunch of police and civillians. There was a UFO tv show recently about it, where an independant company took witness statements and made a recreation of what they had seen.

BUT...... when you look closely at the pics of this thing, it looks fake. And add to that, the person who supposedly took the pics wont come clean with an original photo, or even a good excuse for not having it!

My Dad used to tell me, "if it sounds to good to be true, it probably is." I've tested that to the best of my ability since childhood and it has always been proven true for me.

Sorry folks, but I think we're all looking at a fake!

posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 06:52 PM

Originally posted by ElectroMagnetic Multivers

Also, EMM, that video was proven to be a fake long ago. At 0:20 seconds in, when the craft disappears and the camera loses sight, the craft magically reappears in the air but with a higher altitude then it started. It pretty much jumped a good few feet in the sky, right when the camera shakes.

It's a horrible fake, because they forgot to anchor the altitude of the craft with the surroundings. Which is a common mistake in CGI.

posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 07:03 PM
ok, i looked at the photo's, the 1st one looked like a very aerodynamic UFO, the 2nd one kinda looked the same but with a shift tword the front. At first it looked like a stealth bomber, but i zoomed in and it wasn't

posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 07:26 PM
I'm can't be completely sure what is in the OPs pictures but there are rumors and allegations that the government is flying a new breed of stealth recon planes. Could this be the mysterious TR-3A Black Manta?

new topics

top topics

<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in