It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Mystery Aircraft Frightens Quincy, MA Residents
page: 8share:
Originally posted by weavty1
I literally just highlighted the exact imaging platform, in my post above..
I read it, but that is only one possibility.
It can also be FLIR, Ground radar, laser, or a directional antenna/detector (for example to pinpoint a radio transmission or even radiation source).
Originally posted by ownbestenemy
reply to post by defcon5
Are you suggesting that I don't work around aircraft of that I don't have a large body of knowledge to pull from?! I didn't say it wasn't anything, but that it isn't obvious. ATS is turning schizophrenic.....heaven forbid you question another or discuss the merits of something said.
That plane with the incredibly obscuring red circle is a Cessna 182T. Could the identified portion of the craft be something? Yes and I don't disagree. I do disagree with the instant speculation that it is something. Until we have other pictures of the same aircraft it could be nothing, it could be something.
I said it before and I'll say it again....
The 'pod' attached to the fuselage, is more than likely an L-3 Wescam MX-series gyro-stabilized imaging system.
edit on 5/11/2013 by weavty1 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by weavty1
I said it before and I'll say it again....
The 'pod' attached to the fuselage, is more than likely an L-3 Wescam MX-series gyro-stabilized imaging system.
And I'll say it again and with no need for some childish "bolding" text; I didn't say it wasn't something and your guess is just as good as mine saying it doesn't look as if it is anything abnormal. But hey, go on with your enlarging text and trying to push your faux A-type personality over the net. What a clown.
Originally posted by defcon5
Originally posted by weavty1
I literally just highlighted the exact imaging platform, in my post above..
I read it, but that is only one possibility.
It can also be FLIR, Ground radar, laser, or a directional antenna/detector (for example to pinpoint a radio transmission or even radiation source).
A Wescam MX-series camera system, does consist of FLIR, ground radar, and laser.... Lol
reply to post by ownbestenemy
Okay, well here's further food for thought, adding to what you had mentioned earlier
(visit the link for the full news article)
No need to be crass, buddy
Okay, well here's further food for thought, adding to what you had mentioned earlier
FBI spy planes patrol U.S.
WASHINGTON - The FBI has a fleet of aircraft, some equipped with night surveillance and eavesdropping equipment, flying America's skies to track and collect intelligence from suspected terrorists.
(visit the link for the full news article)
No need to be crass, buddy
edit on 5/11/2013 by weavty1 because: (no reason given)
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.
Originally posted by ownbestenemy
Are you suggesting that I don't work around aircraft of that I don't have a large body of knowledge to pull from?!
No, I'm saying those types of mounts are used for specific applications, and that those who work around aircraft are familiar with them.
Originally posted by ownbestenemy
I didn't say it wasn't anything, but that it isn't obvious.
There are a limited number of things that will go on that type of mounting system.
Originally posted by ownbestenemy
heaven forbid you question another or discuss the merits of something said.
well it doesn't come off that way. What it comes off as is just being argumentative over insignificant details in the way something was worded.
Originally posted by ownbestenemy
That plane with the incredibly obscuring red circle is a Cessna 182T.
The original picture that is in this thread doesn't have the circle on it. I added it to point out the mount.
Originally posted by ownbestenemy
Could the identified portion of the craft be something? Yes and I don't disagree. I do disagree with the instant speculation that it is something.
Well then you you must not know as much about aircraft as you claim. That is not standard equipment. That is an added swivel mounting (most likely stabilized) for something that is directional like a laser, IR, radar, camera, etc...Something non-directional would be put flat against a surface (most likely the bottom of the aircraft).
As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.
Originally posted by defcon5
There are a limited number of things that will go on that type of mounting system.
You can see that much detail?! I am impressed. By all means, I will inform my aviation buddies we have evidence otherwise.
well it doesn't come off that way. What it comes off as is just being argumentative over insignificant details in the way something was worded.
Insignificant meaning it is a picture with very little detail and an implied portion of the fuselage that could be an piece of external equipment? You mean those insignificant details?
Have you worked on this specific airframe?
Well then you you must not know as much about aircraft as you claim.
I told you what airframe it was.
That is not standard equipment. That is an added swivel mounting (most likely stabilized) for something that is directional like a laser, IR, radar, camera, etc...Something non-directional would be put flat against a surface (most likely the bottom of the aircraft).As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.
That....is to be determined. You are speaking as if you have been up close to that particular frame and saw what was or isn't attached to it. Speculate on Defcon....this place is going down hill.
In other news, the said 'owner' of RTK Productions, which one of the suspect planes is registered to, denies even owning a plane, much less three of
them.
Annnnd the plot thickens.... Interesting!
Annnnd the plot thickens.... Interesting!
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.
Originally posted by ownbestenemy
You can see that much detail?! I am impressed. By all means, I will inform my aviation buddies we have evidence otherwise.
Maybe I have keener eyesight than you, or maybe I ran an airline ramp operation for over a decade. Whatever it may be, it was pretty obvious to me what it was.
Originally posted by ownbestenemy
Insignificant meaning it is a picture with very little detail and an implied portion of the fuselage that could be an piece of external equipment? You mean those insignificant details?
Again, I don't know what to tell you other then it was obvious to me.
Here is a similar setup by a private surveillance company.
Originally posted by ownbestenemy
Have you worked on this specific airframe?
I have been around them, and have flown 150's and 172's. Its obvious that this is added external equipment. I mostly worked on real aircraft, up to BA's Concords.
Originally posted by ownbestenemy
That....is to be determined. You are speaking as if you have been up close to that particular frame and saw what was or isn't attached to it. Speculate on Defcon....this place is going down hill.
Please name for us one other piece of domed aviation equipment that would be located in that position of the aircraft fuselage.
As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.
Last year we had a military copter flying patterns, VERY low over my rural-residential area. It was highly unusual activity for this area, in the
middle of nowhere. When I took out my 400mm lens and began to snap photos, I noticed that it was carrying a civilian who was observing, out an open
side door. That really piqued my curiosity. What was a new Army copter equipped with some kind of surveillance equipment, manned by a civilian,
doing flying extremely low, and loud, search patterns over my home and immediate neighborhood, for over an hour. The house was rattling, and pets
were perturbed.
Ultimately, we decided that the machine was probably leased to DEA and that they were looking for illegal crops, probably tipped off by someone. I am not sure what became of it. But that's the most plausible explanation I could believe.
Ultimately, we decided that the machine was probably leased to DEA and that they were looking for illegal crops, probably tipped off by someone. I am not sure what became of it. But that's the most plausible explanation I could believe.
edit on 12-5-2013 by zayonara because: (no reason given)
Where abouts do you live, out of curiosity?
Also, what time of the year was it that this happened last year? *edit - never mind, I found out that it was September 12*
The heli is a Eurocopter/Sikorsky/EADS LUH-72A Lakota.. Definitely military, judging by the tail number (Bureau Number), that it reads 72216 and that it's a US Army rotorcraft..
Based on this, I'm assuming you might live somewhere in Mississippi or Alabama.. Correct me if I'm wrong?
Also, what time of the year was it that this happened last year? *edit - never mind, I found out that it was September 12*
The heli is a Eurocopter/Sikorsky/EADS LUH-72A Lakota.. Definitely military, judging by the tail number (Bureau Number), that it reads 72216 and that it's a US Army rotorcraft..
Based on this, I'm assuming you might live somewhere in Mississippi or Alabama.. Correct me if I'm wrong?
edit on 5/12/2013 by weavty1 because:
(no reason given)
reply to post by defcon5
I never claimed what you speculated was wrong, only that it was that; speculation. After a night and day with some aviation buddies, they believe it is what you speculated. My stance was that of observance without jumping to what it may or may not be. From there, it is pure speculation what it is.
I never claimed what you speculated was wrong, only that it was that; speculation. After a night and day with some aviation buddies, they believe it is what you speculated. My stance was that of observance without jumping to what it may or may not be. From there, it is pure speculation what it is.
Originally posted by ownbestenemy
I never claimed what you speculated was wrong, only that it was that; speculation. After a night and day with some aviation buddies, they believe it is what you speculated.
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.
So in other words, your friends agree that I was in fact NOT speculating.
Thank them for verifying what I already knew for me though.
As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.
Originally posted by METACOMET
Mystery Aircraft Frightens Quincy, MA Residents
boston.cbslocal.com
(visit the link for the full news article)
Every night for nearly the last two weeks, residents have spotted a low-flying aircraft doing loops over the city. WBZ has learned the FAA knows what’s going on, but the agency isn’t telling.
“We’re as frustrated as our constituents,” said Mayor Tom Koch. “We’d like to be able to give our citizens some answers, but we don’t have any answers.”
Sources tell WBZ that the aircraft is not a drone, that it is manned. FAA spokesman Jim Peters would only say, “We have to be very careful this time” concerning information.
Related News Links:
www.boston.com
It's often said around here...photos or video of it or it didn't happen!
Where are all the videos and images taken of this 'low flying aircraft' then?
I mean, this is now an international story / mystery concerning a low flying aircraft, returning night after night for almost two weeks, with mysterious quotes from the FAA about dangers to the public...there should be hundreds, even thousands of close-up, HD videos of the thing surely?
And shouldn't the city send up a couple of aircraft to intercept this aircraft if there's a potential danger to the public? Of course it should!
If this was about testing air quality as some have suggested, why not simply say so? Why would the FAA say the cannot say if there's a danger to the public or not if this was the reason for the flights?
I'd send up a flight of choppers and force the thing to land and get some bloody answers, FAA or no FAA.
Criminal or imminent danger to the public takes priority, especially if the FAA can't confirm public safety in relation to the aircraft.
Get some aircraft in the air Quincy!
Oh and residents...get your high spec cameras out will ya!
Originally posted by MysterX
Where are all the videos and images taken of this 'low flying aircraft' then?
reply to post by MysterX
12160.info...
I just wanted to point out that one of the newscasters said that this plane is flying only when it's clear out, not when it's cloudy. I don't know
what effect that might have on whatever kind of surveillance they're doing but I can't imagine if they're trying to test for radiation or 'red
tide smell' or trying to map the city streets in some way that the cloud cover would make a difference.
What kind of surveillance needs clear skies when you're flying that low?
And did this plane issue start about the time they got the surviving bombing brother to talk? Just wondering if there's a connection.
What kind of surveillance needs clear skies when you're flying that low?
And did this plane issue start about the time they got the surviving bombing brother to talk? Just wondering if there's a connection.
reply to post by signalfire
Rain or cloud cover could make a difference in both surveillance, and in radiation detection. Water could prevent the spread of the isotopes they are looking for, and it could keep their cameras from getting a good clear view of whatever they're looking for.
Rain or cloud cover could make a difference in both surveillance, and in radiation detection. Water could prevent the spread of the isotopes they are looking for, and it could keep their cameras from getting a good clear view of whatever they're looking for.
edit on 5/16/2013 by Zaphod58
because: (no reason given)
reply to post by signalfire
FLIR i would say needs clear conditions. I have a FLIR in my car as a night vision device.
It doesn't work well at all during heavy rain, or especially fog or more than light snow.
Does this help?
FLIR i would say needs clear conditions. I have a FLIR in my car as a night vision device.
It doesn't work well at all during heavy rain, or especially fog or more than light snow.
Does this help?