Ex-Pentagon official: Captured spy plane seems fake

reply to post by SLAYER69


Slayer,

As usual you are all over it...

I thought this could possibly used as a point of entry into their network.

Maybe it's loaded with some nasty little virus like a Stuxnet 2.0

Either way, something is not right here.

Stuxnet Wiki

I was thinking the same thing. It just does not seem very high tech. Looks like something I could break.
I know the budget maybe getting cut...but damn it looks cheap.

Glad someone else thought the same thing..



My question is why would our government ask for it back if it was fake? (There are reports that they have). Could that be a reason for us to go into that country with our military? To "retrieve it". Or some other unknown reason.

Love the american flag with skulls btw....cute...
creative iranians

Originally posted by StarPeace
I was thinking the same thing. It just does not seem very high tech. Looks like something I could break.

Glad someone else thought the same thing..

My question is why would our government ask for it back if it was fake? (There are reports that they have). Could that be a reason for us to go into that country with our military? To "retrieve it". Or some other unknown reason.

I wouldnt bank on the retrieve it position, since they would have done that first. They didnt want to destroy it because they felt it would be taken as aggressive action by Iran (not that flying spy planes over Iranian territory is aggressive or anything /end sarcasm).

If its some elaborate ruse by the US, its 6 of 1, 1/2 dozen of the other on whether or not asking for it back was part of the plan to throw the iranians off to reinforce the "its real" argument.

Im not sure which action would be more suspicious, asking for it back or ignoring it like it never happened and giving the appearence the Us doesnt care about the technology. Both options would (should have with Iran) raise questions, so the question would be which path is more believable.

There just seems to be to many people trying to explain it away if that makes sense..

reply to post by JBA2848


Looks exactly like white balance issues to me. I wouldn't start analyzing this untill you get shots that are properly adjusted for WB.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
reply to post by JBA2848

 

Reference the last picture in your post. Did you place the red circle or was it there when you snagged the pic? If possible do you have a link to the article that contained the photo? I am curious as to why the circle is there. It looks like its highlighting damage but im not sure.
....

Thought the same. Looks almost like the wing is dusty and these are marks from the transportation ropes. Or fingers but I think the drone would be a little bit heavy for easy lifting with 6 men or so. But if its a paperplane, it would be possible

And now we have yet another explanation by Iran -

ATS Thread - Iran hijacked the drone

In an exclusive interview, an engineer working to unlock the secrets of the captured RQ-170 Sentinel says they exploited a known vulnerability and tricked the US drone into landing in Iran.

i say if they hijacked it while in international airspace and landed it in Iran, then we need to screw the politics and blow it up.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
And now we have yet another explanation by Iran -

ATS Thread - Iran hijacked the drone

I think Iran is just starting to figure out...

They have been played.

You are also right about the request for return.

It was laughable...

This is the link for the photo.

defensetech.org...

This site does a goood job showing how it could of been taken down.

theaviationist.com...

Originally posted by JBA2848
This is the link for the photo.

defensetech.org...

Cool thank you.. It contained the answer to my question.

the red circle was highlighting light wing damage.

ETA - A comment made in the opinion section raised an interesting point. Why is this drone being displayed in a gymnasium?

reply to post by JBA2848

There is a good question in the comment section of that link.

What is with he curtain around the undercarriage. If the landing gear broke off that should not justify a curtain.

Originally posted by Xcathdra

Originally posted by JBA2848
This is the link for the photo.

defensetech.org...

Cool thank you.. It contained the answer to my question.

the red circle was highlighting light wing damage.

ETA - A comment made in the opinion section raised an interesting point. Why is this drone being displayed in a gymnasium?

edit on 15-12-2011 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

Cause there would be no way the US would have it selfdestruct, in a high school.
Also no way the US would blow a school in a attempt to destroy the drone.


Speculation of course...

reply to post by SLAYER69


Hi Slayer, part of the reason (maybe even the biggest reason) for flying drones over targets is less to do with photographing sites and more to do with intercepting radio communications. A drone can also monitor a site under cloud cover for last minute intel prior to any missions. Drones may also be equipped to detect radar installations and map those so future missions know where they are. There are probably dozens of reasons for utilizing a drone instead of just satellites we may never know of, being outside the military.

We know this 'ex-Pentagon official' is full of BS as the US has already admitted it was our drone. And we lost another drone elsewhere so this isn't an isolated incident.

Originally posted by Blackmarketeer
We know this 'ex-Pentagon official' is full of BS as the US has already admitted it was our drone. And we lost another drone elsewhere so this isn't an isolated incident.

I never claimed it wasn't ours.

I'm saying the possibility of and need for a "Real full feature Drone" may not have been required. Sending in a stripped down version would have been prudent. Hence, why the drone in question seems to be a bit off to some of those more knowledgeable in this field.

Originally posted by axiomuser
This occurred to me as well. But, according to a dark secret place radio show it isn't that hard to take control of the drone signal. You just need a stronger signal to take its place and some time to figure out frequencies. I would hope that someone would be smart enough to try and pull off what you propose. My guess is that this is just another costly, embarrassing mistake made by our "betters".

thedarksecretplace.com...

You ever consider that the data going both ways is highly encrypted virtually impossible to crack, let along understand exactly what the active program does bit by encrypted bit?

Basically, they couldn't do it themselves. Maybe if it was done, the Russians or Chinese had a hand in it.

Here's what I think happened.

This Drone went down in Afghanistan and was cut in three pieces.

It was then badly reassembled and painted then put on display.

The rest is just noise.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by JBA2848
This is the link for the photo.

defensetech.org...

This site does a goood job showing how it could of been taken down.

theaviationist.com...

edit on 15-12-2011 by JBA2848 because: (no reason given)

Thanks for these pics.

What I just realized for the first time is that of all the places they could put the drone, like in a military warehouse or hanger, they have it displayed in a GYMNASIUM???????

WTF!

I would think that they would have this thing pretty much locked away, out of sight, yet, they display it in a public place like a Gym?

This leaves the damn thing sitting right out there in plain sight, where ANYONE could systematically figure out its exact location. I mean, how many Gym's exist in Iran, with green markings on the gym floor, and with those particular wall posters in the background???

Something is not right here folks.

I'm fairly sure that it's not public gym. That would be pretty hilarious with everyone lining up to see the drone. I'm guessing a military base gym. Those things usually excist in bases.

Official ATS members: ex-pentagon official seems fake.

These goons are trying to save face and they always bring some aninous news source who's credibility and evidence can't be questioned. I have a rule that any unnamed sources lacking evidence are to be taken with a grain of salt

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
Official ATS members: ex-pentagon official seems fake.

These goons are trying to save face and they always bring some aninous news source who's credibility and evidence can't be questioned. I have a rule that any unnamed sources lacking evidence are to be taken with a grain of salt

Sometimes, I have a hard time taking you seriously because of your avatar having a very ignorant, smug looking face.