Have you ever noticed?...
- Thread starter electrafixtion
- Start date
Another stupid comment from a dunce.
Here Tony Ortega writes about someone almost, but not as stupid as you electric-fiction. You dope.
I'm calling your bluff on this claim. My speculation is that you lied again. This is just crap flowing from a liar who makes up evidence as he goes along.
electrafixtion
Registered Senior Member
electrafixtion
Registered Senior Member
Meh, ccCleaner didn't fix it either - I just killed my firewall, anti virus and everything else temporarily, that worked.
Almost certainly an F-117 (although I admit if the only the second of the two photos [the one where it's further over to the right] had been available I would have been dubious).
A look at the comments appended on the link has someone saying it can't be an F-117 because the tailplane's not there.
Which seems reasonable at first sight, it IS rather large from side-on:
But you only need a slight angle and, voila!, it all but disappears:
Or even:
Almost certainly an F-117 (although I admit if the only the second of the two photos [the one where it's further over to the right] had been available I would have been dubious).
A look at the comments appended on the link has someone saying it can't be an F-117 because the tailplane's not there.
Which seems reasonable at first sight, it IS rather large from side-on:
But you only need a slight angle and, voila!, it all but disappears:
Or even:
Last edited:
Oli,
I have looked at a bunch of images on Google image to see if I can find a corresponding photo to the f117. They look different to me.
The tail of the F117 kicks up and back, this one doesn't appear to have the same tail shape.
I can see if it's turned a certain way it would look thinner. But to me it doesn't appear to be a match. Any other knowns that might fit ?
I have looked at a bunch of images on Google image to see if I can find a corresponding photo to the f117. They look different to me.
The tail of the F117 kicks up and back, this one doesn't appear to have the same tail shape.
I can see if it's turned a certain way it would look thinner. But to me it doesn't appear to be a match. Any other knowns that might fit ?
again I ask
All I can suggest is that (as anyone trained in aircraft recognition knows) the visual characteristics can vary drastically with angle and lighting - which is why, strangely, training is required (and given - usually by the government/ service to which one is attached).
In the end it comes down to "feel" and overall familiarity after many (many, many) hours of training and looking at obscure, (sometimes deliberately) poor-quality photos.
If it helps you accept my analysis
I was the only person to score 100% on my first-ever recognition test* and the year I joined my local Air Training Corps team also turned out to be the first (and only, since I left shortly afterwards) time they ever made it to the finals of national recognition competition.* that was nearly 40 years ago - and a large portion of my disposable income went (and still goes) on military-related publications (the vast majority of which are about aviation).
Apparently not.
Apparently I neglected to bookmark the page, and can't find it again.
Don't assume that I can't find it because it doesn't exist however, instead, look to the thousands upon thousands of bullshit blogs floating around drowning out the useful information (among other things).
Even if i'm wrong, an aircraft can appear to be silent - I live near a flight path, see comercial jets all the time, never hear them though.
I believe this is probably the sighting he's referring to.
http://www.nuforc.org/webreports/002/S02124.html
Incidentaly, this individual places what he saw at an altitude of 3000 feet.
Okay, yes the newspaper said saucer.
And your point is?
All I can suggest is that (as anyone trained in aircraft recognition knows) the visual characteristics can vary drastically with angle and lighting - which is why, strangely, training is required (and given - usually by the government/ service to which one is attached).
In the end it comes down to "feel" and overall familiarity after many (many, many) hours of training and looking at obscure, (sometimes deliberately) poor-quality photos.
If it helps you accept my analysis
* that was nearly 40 years ago - and a large portion of my disposable income went (and still goes) on military-related publications (the vast majority of which are about aviation).
That is very impressive Oli.
In this case, even though I highly value your expert opinion. I don't see the same shape identifiers with the F117. There are a few things that just don't line up for me with the two we have. Specifically the tail area of the plane.
I will keep looking to see if I find another known possibility.
Any addiitional input is welcomed.
Thanks.
Oli,
Looking at it again. Comparing with the F117 shape. I do see on the second one where there appears to be a white/light spot at the back. That could be the v notch of the F117, so on the second one I can see the possibilty of a match. The first photo it doesn't look like a notch. Maybe I can find a zoom shot of it. Not sure how to do that myself.
Looking at it again. Comparing with the F117 shape. I do see on the second one where there appears to be a white/light spot at the back. That could be the v notch of the F117, so on the second one I can see the possibilty of a match. The first photo it doesn't look like a notch. Maybe I can find a zoom shot of it. Not sure how to do that myself.
That's why I posted the second of the three pics - any slight upwards angle and the fins become invisible - blanked out by the fuselage.
(Which must make for directional control problems at alpha values much lower than most combat aircraft are capable of operating at).
I loaded it into Paint Shop Pro, but zooming in didn't make it any clearer.
One thing to consider is that the lighting/ angle may have made the fin not register AT ALL in the original photo.
If the viewing angle were such that the fin is more or less edge-on (rather than side-on) then the resolution of the camera that took the photo may have "deleted" the fin altogether.
I.e. if the thickness was at or below the minimum resolution of the lens.
what does the top image in the following photo look like?
(thanks oli)
mama's got guts!
Interesting that they've published this and apparently taken it at face value:
One problem is that unless you know exactly what you're looking at (if it's not between you and something of a known size and a known distance - i.e. in the sky) then you cannot state, from an eye sight-only viewing, what size something is and if you don't know its size then how do you judge the distance?
(Or vice versa- if you KNOW the distance you can estimate the size).
One relatively "famous" viewing (I say relatively because it did the rounds when I was in the Observer Corps and was related to me by the guy on duty in the radar tower at RAF Cottesmore at the time: they were contacted by an incoming RAF flight (trained observers!) to complain about an air-miss (the official terminology when two aircraft are within mid-air collision possibility distance) - the pilot stated, somewhat irately, that ground control hadn't informed him of the C-130 Hercules (40 metres wingspan) at the same altitude within 5 miles and that he'd had to change course to avoid it.
His reputation didn't get enhanced when ground control told him that it was actually a C-5 (68 metres wingspan) at fifteen miles and on a diverging course.
One slight misidentification and the whole situation resolved itself incorrectly.