Originally posted by refuse_orders
It looks to me very much how i imagine the FB-22 in flight would look from that angle. Anyone else think so? Heres a diagram and info page on the
I read every post in this thread and finally I see this post which is a reasonable idea of what the object could be, and nobody even replied to this
post yet? Amazing, well I have no idea if it's an FB-22 or not, but yes I see the resemblance, even down to the detail of the single sawtooth at the
leading edge of the wing near where it meets the canopy. So I wouldn't rule out the FB-22, nor would I rule out a model based on the FB-22 though I
disagree a little with the post that said you can get a toilet seat to fly in RC version, maybe so but it would be difficult to control as I suspect
this craft would be difficult to control in RC form. I also wouldn't rule out Aurora or a model of Aurora, a very similar shape.
If this is a model, I don't think it's Mugi Evo, the shape doesn't appear close enough to me, but if someone was able to identify a model with a
shape more similar to the one photographed, that would be more convincing.
Some of the theories we can discard are weather balloon, (OK I'm sure you were joking about that), Kite (Were you joking about that? This has no
characteristics of a kite), object thrown in the air and photographed (attitude is too consistent for that). And are the people taking about aliens
and reverse engineering serious or kidding? I can't tell. This looks like a manmade object.
Regarding it being a fake, I think if a fake is bad it's possible to prove it's a fake. But of the proof offered so far in this thread that it's a
fake, it's not convincing to me. On the contrary, take the photograph where the guy added the bad fake and slide your gamma control and you can see
the difference between the fake object and this one. Now, if it's not a bad fake, that leaves 2 other options, either it's a good fake, or it's a
real object. I don't know which, it's hard to disprove a good fake, so it could be that or it could be real. Whoever thinks the heights and angles
don't add up, or the timing spacing of the photographs don't line up, I don't find that argument convincing at all. I used to live near an air base
and have jets fly over my house, at speeds, turns, and scales that would be similar to what is seen in these photos (though I could hear them). Maybe
I could have taken more than 3 photos but maybe not, some digital cameras take a significant fraction of a second before allowing you to take the next
picture. And even if I didn't take more than 3 pictures doesn't prove that what I photographed is a fake.
Regarding the scale, it's impossible to tell if it's a small model closer to the camera, or a larger real aircraft further away from the camera. (or
a good fake that was photoshopped in)
Now I'm pretty sure about all the above. Another thought I'm not as sure about, is the sound property. Stealthy aircraft have the engines buried
inside the body of the aircraft which is why you don't see the bulging cylindrical jet engine protrusions on the FB-22 and Aurora drawings like you
do on older style jets. I'm guessing here that the jet engines being buried inside in this fashion would probably significantly reduce, though
probably not eliminate the jet engine sound. But I never saw any Auroras or FB-22s fly overhead like the common jets, so I can't make a personal
confirmation of this sound reduction, but if somebody else has maybe they can confirm if my guess is correct that they are not as loud, and maybe even
quiet enough to not be heard in a thunderstorm, especially if only using a fraction of maximum power.