Mystery aircraft over California: the Mackbolin sighting

flateric said:
Muxel is asking a hard question - why opsec aircraft should finally start daytime operations? What an urgent need for such surprising appearence? Osama Landcruiser reportedly seen moving at Pakistan border? Or we close for Senior Shmenior declassification date? What were the reasons for Nighthawks to ban night operations and start flying over Tony Landis & Co. at early 90s?

There are a lot of reasons to fly during daylight, and it's actually a pretty regular thing at DET 3. For example, RED HAT aircraft, even sensitive ones, regularly fly during the day and are quite visible. The supposed "fastmover" aircraft has been seen operating during the day, etc.
Some things are "sight sensitive", some not. During the 80s and early 1990s, most, if not all projects active at DET 3 were sight sensitive. Now there is a greater degree of diversity in the projects flying, and to some extent the rules have been relaxed.

Additionally, for some missions you can't help it. If you're demonstrating long range and long endurance, for example, you by definition have to be flying during daylight these days. 30hr mission endurance for a UAV means you will be in the air when the sun is up, though you can often confine that to a secure area like the western test ranges.

High speed aircraft have their own challenges.


The F-117 started flying during daylight outside of the range only after the AF acknowledged the program in 1988/89. There had been daylight flights before that, but they were infrequent.
 
TomS said:
archipeppe said:
Sorry folks, but in the enclosed images I still continue to see a VG jet powered aircraft with two engines (two trails are barely visible).
It could be a lot of aircraft ranging from F14 to Tornado, passing for much esotics F111 and Su24.

I agree that this is probably a VG aircraft; the light areas seen in the enhanced pictures nicely corespond to the trailing edge of a swept VG wing. I would accept twin engines, though I'm not totally convinced.

Problem is, neither the F-14 nor the Tornado show the pronounced notch at the traling edge seen in this picture. The long-wing F-111C or G with wings fully swept would more or less match that trailing edge profile. However, I can't find any aspect from which the F-111 would show the pronounced "shoulders" at the wing root seen in this image--at full sweep the wing gloves are a straight extension of the wing leading edge.


My first impression, especially when you keep in mind that they admit they modified the enlargement slightly, is that ti is an F-14. If we don't assume that the aircraft is flying perfectly level perpendicular to the camera, the notches may be actually part of the vertical stabilizers peeking out over the horizontals. The "shoulders" would be the intakes. A Tomcat would look very much like this from below if it were climbing away from the camera, or at the bottom of a split-S. When the F-14 was forced out of service, all the Ds were sent to museums except for two or three that were put in war readiness storage. I'm stretching here, but may the Navy's best fighter isn't completely gone.

P.S. The "Omega" markings are just the kind of thing that Tomcatters would do.
 
What Quellish said. (Yo, dude.) There may be operational reasons that you have to fly over CONUS in daylight, if you want to be somewhere else at a certain time of day.
 
F-14D said:
When the F-14 was forced out of service, all the Ds were sent to museums except for two or three that were put in war readiness storage.

What would be the point of saving only two or three for "war readiness storage"? What effect could two or three possibly have on a war? ??? (They should have put ALL the Ds in flyable storage IMO.)
 
sferrin said:
F-14D said:
When the F-14 was forced out of service, all the Ds were sent to museums except for two or three that were put in war readiness storage.

What would be the point of saving only two or three for "war readiness storage"? What effect could two or three possibly have on a war? ??? (They should have put ALL the Ds in flyable storage IMO.)

A valid question and one which was never answered. Then again, maybe whatever this is all about is what they were saved for. Good a guess as any, I suppose.

Although the Tomcat is sorely missed and was a better plane than what replaced it, there were so few Ds, that once the decision was made to retire them, it would have been too expensive to keep the fleet ready to go. Plus, the stocks of parts necessary to bring back a substantial fleet would be subject to "diversion" to Iran, and the USN and DoD are absolutely panicked about that (some reports are that it's already happened to some surplus parts). Talking with a few museums that got Tomcat Ds flown in, they noted they had never seen an airplane brought in that got demill'ed so fast and so extensively. The cockpits were reduced to shells, even rudder pedals were removed. And as for the engines and fire control...!
 
As Steve Douglass remarks on the sighting at http://www.webbfeatproductions.com/Fake_.html, reffered by Bill Sweetman at Ares Blog not accessible at the moment, here goes cashed version of his conclusions.



Photo Fakery Or The Real Deal?
Analysis of the Live Leak unidentified aircraft photo.

By Steve Douglass


Like all black project watchers, I read with great interest the posts and blogs concerning a photo of a possibly secret aircraft posted on Live Leak.


The original post was as follows:


California-Unknown Craft Photographed
California-04-24-08-I was fishing on Lake Trinity, and heard the sound of an aircraft engine. It was a very low frequency sound, but I felt it more than I could actually hear it. I only had an older Sony digital camera with me, the batteries were almost dead. I snapped 4 pictures before the camera shut off, only one came out when I read the disk.


I observed the aircraft until it vanished. It flew straight and level, I was unable to guage its size since I had no reference. But a best guess, since I have seen airliners fly over a couple of times early in the morning, I would say it was as big as a medium sized airliner, probably the size of the space shuttle. I know aircraft well, this did not look like anything I have seen out at Nellis.


It was very quiet, when an airliner flies over this lake, I hear it long before I can see it. This thing was already overhead when I heard it. It was flying southeast, as if it was on course to Las Vegas. One thing that was strange, just before I heard it, or felt it, I had a funny feeling that something was watching me, so I scanned the shorline thinking there was something watching me, then my exposed skin warmed up fast and only for 15 seconds as if I was hit with a microwave beam.


Almost enough to make me want to jump in the water. Then I felt it and saw the exhaust trail and grabbed the camera cause it was a single contrail, larger than any airliner.


The one shot that came out was at the camera's highest zoom, it is a 10X optical zoom. I was really reluctant of reporting this, the course it was on, well it flew over the most heaviest forested, least populated part of Northern California.


This thing left me with such a strange feeling that I packed up and sped home asap. I was scheduled to be on the lake through the weekend. Now I don't think this thing is alien, but it is a UFO because I don't know what the hell it is.


source and references:


MUFON submitter 10539


Here’s the original photo:


Although the photo looked real enough, I was skeptical, especially after reading the “microwave beam” description.


Still, it was intriguing photo and I like a challenge so I decided to delve deeper.


Before analyzing the photo, I decided to analyze the post, since it can be as telling as the photo. Several lines in the tale hit me as strangely familiar and also hinted at a possible hidden agenda by the poster.


These are the lines that bothered me.


1.

1.It was a very low frequency sound, but I felt it more than I could actually hear it.


This line is almost verbatim how I described the sound I heard emitted by the “The Pulser” aircraft,

I witnessed many, many years ago and published in AW&ST May 11, 1992, p. 62


Although in the AVWK article I did not describe the sound the unidentified “donuts -on-a-rope” aircraft as such, I did ( in many subsequent TV interviews that appeared on the Discovery & History Channel ) say “It was more of a sound you felt - than heard.”


Therefore, you may ask yourself, since you heard an aircraft that sounded similar, why don’t I believe the story?


A: No pulser-contrail.


2.

B.It sounded like someone quoting - me - and most likely someone who has absorbed the “black project” lore.


Other things that bugged me ...


2.

2.“I only had an older Sony digital camera with me, the batteries were almost dead.”


Hmm - I think - No - I know I’ve said that before. - when I video-taped several seconds of a a mini-B-2 shaped aircraft while attending Roving Sands (war games) in New Mexico in 1993.


Phil Patton wrote in his WIRED story Stealth Watchers: “ He raised his video camera - and the battery warning light flashed. He grabbed seven seconds of video before the machine snapped off.


Me thinks me smells something fishy, but before you think I’m making this story “all about me” read on.


3.

3.“I know aircraft well, this did not look like anything I have seen out at Nellis.”


This is the biggest hint of all - that the poster is either an aviation buff or most likely a UFO-ie as also evident by being “ MUFON submitter 10539”


Not to mention:


4.

4.“Now I don't think this thing is alien, but it is a UFO because I don't know what the hell it is.”


Wait! it gets better. This poster does have an agenda as revealed in this line:



4.

4.It was flying southeast, as if it was on course to Las Vegas.


Sounds to me he is trying to lead the reader to the conclusion that whatever it was it was probably from Groom Lake. Why not just say the aircraft was heading southeast?


My guess is It’s more exciting to think this was a “black bird” heading back to the secret bases of bases and since the reader comes to that conclusion (on his own) it becomes all that more believable -- right?


And then ...


5. “Then I felt it and saw the exhaust trail and grabbed the camera cause it was a single contrail, larger than any airliner.”


Again, suspicious. The contrail in the photo doesn’t look unusually large or out of scale for the aircraft, and yet the poster takes time to note this in his description. Does anyone know where i can get a contrail measuring meter?


But what really gets me is ...


6.

6.“I was really reluctant of reporting this.”


And yet he did - even if it was as an anonymous coward.


It would be easy to believe the source is afraid of the infamous “men in black” -- or it is just a transparent attempt to embellish the sighting - making it seem more secret by suggesting he might get in trouble for reporting it?


But most likely - the poster was afraid it would be exposed as a fake - and didn’t want anyone to know who the faker was.


On a personal note:


All of the photos, sighting and monitoring reports and videos I have posted on the Internet (of unusual aircraft I have encountered) have been done so with my name plainly attached.


Although many, many “experts” have analyzed, criticized, debated, derided and posted (sometimes profane) comments about me and my writings on various aviation forums, I have always stood by my guns.


I have never been hassled by the government, told to shut up ( by any official) visited by Federal agents or otherwise censored or (to my knowledge) investigated.


Why?


Because to do so would validate my reports - and the government is smarter than that


Therefore the “I was really reluctant of reporting this” doesn’t fly.


As a result - when I see anonymous posts, they are always suspect in my book.


Other reasons I don’t like anonymous posts is, because of my high profile, I have been e-mailed and snail-mailed, many supposed photos of various “black aircraft or UFOs” by many anonymous sources and in every single instance they have been proven to be bogus.


I don’t know if they were sent to me by person(s) with a political agendas or by someone trying to get me to pronounce a photo as genuine and then expose them as a fake - as an attempt to embarrass or discredit me - but it has happened on more than one occasion.


Point of fact: I was once burned by a photo (sent to me by a source I implicitly trusted) only to have it turn out (to the great delight of S. Douglass detractors) a fake.


Not to mention the recent raking over the coals (from Bill Sweetman) for passing on real photos of the Guam B-2 crash (sent to me by someone who said they were taken on the sly but in actuality had already been posted on many Internet sites by someone else) and ( so as a result ) I am and henceforth will always be slow to comment on - or authenticate = or pass on anything sent to me that has to do with black aircraft - before I have had a chance to scrutinize it thoroughly.


Once I was sent a photo of a supposed “black project aircraft” that turned out to be one of Graham Hawkes’ mini-subs.


I also debunked (for AVWK’S Bill Scott ) the now infamous “USAF flying saucer ” cleverly Photoshopped into a file-photo of a Nasa/Dryden hangar at Edwards AFB.


Not to mention, I can’t tell you how many times I was e-mailed the photos of the fake aircraft used in the movie “Stealth” under the heading: Secret Navy Stealth Warplane Revealed.”


That said ...


As a result, I use the following criteria when I come across or are sent images of supposed secret aircraft.


1.

1.If it is from an anonymous source, it should stay that way. If you won’t take credit, you also won’t take blame. No name - then its a fake.
2.

2. Is there more than one photo? One image is easy to fake, but ten or a dozen frames? That takes time, patience and skills. Who takes one photo anyway? I see the mother-ship from Zeta-Two Reticuli, I’m shooting ‘til I run out of film or card space!
3.

3.Is the original file available? Show me the raw file! I want the meta-data, the camera type, the exposure data - unprocessed images that can be analyzed down to the pixel structure. If you aren’t willing to post the raw image - then don’t send it to me.


Now on to the image analysis...


First thing I did was to up-scale the image to look at the pixel structure.


Using Genuine Fractals, I blew the image up to 300 DPI and found some problems.


CLICK HERE for the resampled image.



One thing that jumped out was what looked like a PhotoShop blur used over the entire image. Although the image was supposedly from a Sony camera with a 10X digital zoom, it didn’t have the usual pixelated look digital zooms typically make. Especially the contrail - it looked intentionally blurred and not due to a slow shutter speed or even a motion blur. It looked like an obvious attempt to hide the pixel structure.



I then zoomed in and applied NIK Color Efex Pro 3 Tonal Contrast filters which can really expose the pixel structure.


What it revealed is an area of disturbed pixels around

the aircraft shape as if a high-rez image had been pasted

into another lower-rez photograph (most likely the image containing the contrail)

with the image-maker not doing a very good job at cutting and pasting - and then

to fix his edits - adjusting the hue and saturation controls to make it all blend together.


The software also reveals evidence of a another blur filter applied to make pasted in

image appear to have the same resolution.





A false color filter enhances the disturbed pixels as seen here:



















The final test - is to see if I can replicate the image.


To do this, I shot a small toy aircraft against a white background and pasted it into a photo I snatched off the internet of a contrail trailing out behind a jumbo jet.


Here is the original contrail photo:












,

Note the “halo” around the object and other pixel artifacts and how the pixels making up the aircraft are more defined - denser - tightly- packed - than those in the surrounding sky.



This tells me the image is a composite, intentionally blurred and thus most-likely ...


drumroll please ...


A FAKE!

My shot of a toy plane.

And with a little PhotoShop magic, some cutting and pasting and reshaping (trimming off the wings and stretching) to make the aircraft an unrecognizable type ... but plausible - recalling the mythos-- maybe a 75 degree delta- black - stealthy - spooky ... and ... “headed toward Las Vegas” ... add little motion blur - some blending ,,,

... and voila! Aurora finally captured - or wait - an F-16 XL?


Do you see canards?


What about a Draken? - maybe an F-111? - no wait - an F-14!


Interesting engine inlets! What about that aspect ratio?


Kingfish?


Santa?


Superman?


In closing - despite all the blogging in the blogosphere - by blogo-experts one thing is clear- people tend to see what they want to see.


In the end the original photo is at its’ best - just a blurry photo of something possibly flying in the sky that will never yield any true answers - or at its’ worst is a bad fake - designed to do what it is doing, - igniting the blogosphere in useless debate.


It amazed me the details Internet aviationistas are able to discern - when all I see is a Photoshoped image of a fake airplane.


Now lets sit back and see if my image gets passed around on the Internet as the real deal.


1.

-Steve Douglass



PS: Don’t you just hate it when after you’ve posted something and then you think of other somethings you wanted to post?


Last night as I ruminated a bit about the topic, one more discrepancy in the photographer’s account popped into my head that I just had to address, even if I am coming close to flogging (if not already decomposing) and obviously dead horse.


Imagine you are fishing on a placid California Lake. It’s tranquil. The fish maybe or may not be biting - then suddenly a mysterious heat ray sweeps over you and you fee like jumping into the lake - but wait - ignoring the searing sensation - you happen to look up and see see the BAC (big-ass- contrail) - so you put down your fishing pole, grab your ancient Sony camera (which takes time to power up) and manage to focus zoom and snap photos of the mystery aircraft as it zooms by.


Unfortunately (and conveniently) only one of the many frames you took is saved to the camera’s media card due to an exhausted battery (or a result of the mysterious beams radiating from the aircraft ) and it just happens to be the one snap when the aircraft is directly over the photographer.


As a professional photographer who has taken many many photos of high-speed aircraft, the odds of doing this successfully - are - well stacked against you.


You’d either have to have psychic powers of pre-cognition or know the aircraft was coming at you (well in advance and also from what direction) or be incredibly fast and lucky.


Just like in comedy, in photography timing is everything and as we say down here in rural Texas, - that dog just don’t hunt!


-Steve Douglass
 
I had my suspicions as soon as I read "older Sony digital camera almost out of battery power." Sounds like a perfect(ly lame) excuse for a single, lousy photo.

Even in an older camera, in order to be left with only enough juice to take four photos (and conveniently only have one come out, for some reason) he either would've been snapping pictures all day, left the camera on all day, or was a total moron and didn't put fresh batteries in.

Even if it turns out to be real he should be laughed at, just for this.
 
Whether real or fake, whether piloted, unmanned or R/C, the so-called Mackbolin aircraft looks like no actual aircraft, but I find it's closest to the unbuilt F-108 Rapier interceptor.

Here is a quick visual analysis of the Draken and Rapier designs and whether or not they could fit the bill as likely candidates for the Mackbolin mystery...

mackbolin1.jpg


mackbolin2.jpg


More such studies may follow if someone's interested.
 
There are actually civillian owned Drakens that fly in the area, so that idea is not so far fetched. None of them are light colored or have flown in a natural metal finish as far as I know though. National Test Pilot School has one, and I think there are 2 others.

I do think there is something to this sighting, but that is my own opinion.

The two modern aircraft designs I feel most closely match this are a McDD concept from long ago:
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,2867.msg31745.html#msg31745
(also shown in sferrin's avatar)
And one iteration of Rutan's MIPCC powered vehicle for RASCAL. Unfortunately I have still not been able to locate a picture of this concept, but it is very similar to the above McDD concept.
 
It looks to me clearly like a Tornado with the wings swept. The apparant lack of a tail would be caused by distortion from the hot exhausts.
 
Thanks for your interest in this work.

Following Abraham Gubler's remark on the Tornado, I did look into the matter but found it inconclusive:

mackbolin3.jpg


Starting from the visible shape in the Mackbolin photograph, I decided to followed two leads as follows:

In hypothesis #1 I consider that what we see is what we get, the shape of the aircraft is already there...

theory1.jpg


In hypothesis #2, I consider that the shape that is visible is deceiving because of the engine's exhaust (I was helped here by Mr. Gubler's remark), because of various lights and because there is the blur of the picture on top.

theory2.jpg


From a personal point of view, I tend to find hypothesis #2 a lot more conclusive.
 
mmm its ood this Aircraft has a strange color sceme.

can this be a Aerobatic Teams aircraft ?


by the way
U.S. National Test Pilot School has 6 Saab Draken in servis.
 
Abraham Gubler said:
It looks to me clearly like a Tornado with the wings swept. The apparant lack of a tail would be caused by distortion from the hot exhausts.

This debate popped up some time ago on another board and that was also the conclusion arrived at.
 
sferrin said:
Abraham Gubler said:
It looks to me clearly like a Tornado with the wings swept. The apparant lack of a tail would be caused by distortion from the hot exhausts.

This debate popped up some time ago on another board and that was also the conclusion arrived at.

Doesn't mean they were right, though. If you look closely at the diagrams further above, you'll see there is very little in common between a Tornado and this thing!!!
 
Stargazer2006 said:
sferrin said:
Abraham Gubler said:
It looks to me clearly like a Tornado with the wings swept. The apparant lack of a tail would be caused by distortion from the hot exhausts.

This debate popped up some time ago on another board and that was also the conclusion arrived at.

Doesn't mean they were right, though. If you look closely at the diagrams further above, you'll see there is very little in common between a Tornado and this thing!!!

Didn't say they were right. Just said they arrived at the same conclusion.
 
As I recall from another board (ATS...) where it generated much discussion, someone showed that a similiar photo already existed on the net of an alleged UFO or perhaps a black triangle type thing etc (can't remember exactly), but featuring the same distinctive Red marking or symbol on the image (which looks slightly like an Omega symbol). Thereby pretty much discrediting the whole thing...

Personally I also get the impression that if it were a real unaltered image (and I doubt it) then we would be viewing it from behind and below, and not in plan view.
 
Personally I think somebody took a blurry photo of a F-14 and edited it into a picture. Even if it was real is there any chance some F-14s were still being flown at the time for testing purposes?
 
As soon as a certain noob gets un-banned next week, I wouldn't be surprised if he jumps on this thread to proclaim the picture as proof of a flying pumkinseed. Or a mystery JX. ;)

My opinion is that the photo is distortion.


No matter that deeply in my mind I agree, please no personal attacks here! Thanks.
 
Stargazer2006 said:
Doesn't mean they were right, though. If you look closely at the diagrams further above, you'll see there is very little in common between a Tornado and this thing!!!

That’s because you are not taking into account the difference in appearance caused by angular variation. You are comparing the picture with profiles of what aircraft look like from directly below. The photo is clearly of an aircraft from the rear quarter and below as the plane has passed overhead and is flying away. Your perspective change is just to squash the plan view not an actual image of the aircraft. Also there are clearly visible lines in the image showing the trailing edge of the wing glove of a VG aircraft. Since this image is 99.99% likely to be a edited image of a conventional aircraft taken at an airshow the chance that it is some X-Plane F-108 is fanciful.
 
Abraham Gubler said:
That’s because you are not taking into account the difference in appearance caused by angular variation. You are comparing the picture with profiles of what aircraft look like from directly below. The photo is clearly of an aircraft from the rear quarter and below as the plane has passed overhead and is flying away. Your perspective change is just to squash the plan view not an actual image of the aircraft.

You are right about this, I'm squashing and shortening bits to recreate the impression of perspective but of course it's not quite the same, I'll give you that.

Abraham Gubler said:
Also there are clearly visible lines in the image showing the trailing edge of the wing glove of a VG aircraft.

That's possible, the colors are quite confusing here. Don't you think that what seems like canards is more likely caused by lights (the more I look at the picture the more I seem to see a normal air intake à la Draken with two lights seemingly removing part of it...

Abraham Gubler said:
Since this image is 99.99% likely to be a edited image of a conventional aircraft taken at an airshow the chance that it is some X-Plane F-108 is fanciful.

It is, I agree. And although many of us would LOVE to imagine such fanciful aircraft, it is always best to go for the logical and existing solutions first. This is why I resorted to this series of comparisons... and would like to do more... but I do agree that a squashed bird's eye view of an aircraft doesn't quite make an actual perspective.
 
Abraham Gubler said:
Also there are clearly visible lines in the image showing the trailing edge of the wing glove of a VG aircraft. Since this image is 99.99% likely to be a edited image of a conventional aircraft taken at an airshow the chance that it is some X-Plane F-108 is fanciful.

If there is anything clear in that photo, I sure haven't seen it.

The manipulations that Stargazer has done are valuable, even if only as a thought exercise. Of course an F-108 is far fetched. As far fetched as a naval YF-23. The photo could have been taken anywhere at any time, and been manipulated in any number of ways. It is the process that is interesting, the journey of discovery. Isn't that what this forum is for?
For me at least, it is much more about the hunt than the prey.
 
If the mystery image is a distortion of an actual known aircraft, does that explain the symmetrical and highly unusual color pattern on the underside? I personally think it's a fake, but I'm open to the distortion hypothesis. In some ways it resembles an A-12 or SR-71 without extended tail, but I'm certain that's not the case.
 
Oh, I'm quite sure it's fake. I should have pointed that out in my last post. I was just saying what the fake looked like to me. Also, I don't think it's just distorted, there are various effects you can do in photoshop to change the shape by drawing on other layers, adjusting the transparency then gaussian blurring it and adding noise so you can't tell how the image was edited.

My reasoning is this; whenever there have been photos of new or secret craft flying, there are mulitple photos at various angles as the aircraft moves past the viewer. Think of when the F-117 was first declassified, but they didn't reveal much. We saw photos taken outside of Tonopah from multiple angles at a distance. If any of us saw an aircraft flying over head that we couldn't recognize and had a camera ready, would we just snap one or would we snap a "string" of pics? I know what I would do; It wouldn't be to take just one. Hell, most digital cameras even take some video now as well.

Oh, also, if the person who took the photo claimed it was just in the back ground of another image he/she took, I suggest they clean the camera lens next time. ;)
 
Looking at the issue from a different angle-
if this were a real secret aircraft, why would it have swing wings? I mean, VG is (rightly or unjustly) "out of fashion". Most of the aircraft that used it accepted the penalty because the flight envelope was so wide that the aerodynamic benefits outweighed the structural penalties (combining high dash speed, sometimes in a high-q, turbulent low altitude, and good loiter/landing speed characteristics).

Thus this fictitious (most of us agree it's a fake) aircraft would either have the need to fly fast (potentially at low altitude with acceptable gust response) AND have short-field performance as part of its mission profile (like a Tornado, F-111, F-14, Su-24...). Neither seems to fit with USAF doctrine as of late. Plus we have yet to see a LO solution for VG. Not impossible but unlikely.
 
The notion that this picture (whether real or fake) depicts a swing-wing aircraft is pure speculation, influenced by the remarks of those who claim to see a Tornado or a Tomcat in it. There is no evidence of this in the picture whatsoever!

Just take a look at this diagram attached once again. The aircraft shape I started from to arrive at an image similar to the Mackbolin picture is neither swing wing, nor tailless... for all we know it could even be a pilotless drone!

As for the colors, why not a camouflage test? And the would-be omega shape... again this is what one person claims they have seen in it and everyone automatically discards the whole thing... but it could be a round radome for instance.

It is not because everyone says something, or because a handful of influential (or clever/convincing) people claim they have the right explanation that one should necessary take their word as Gospel truth. Again, I'm not saying the Mackbolin photograph is real... but I wouldn't swear it's false simply because the guy failed to take a string of pics! I remember trying to zoom in and focus on a passing F-117 once and all I got was blurred pics... Oftentimes I've seen some moving car or aircraft I particularly wanted to take a snap of and by the time I got the camera out and zoomed in, all I got was a blurry image from a distance...
 

Attachments

  • theory2.jpg
    theory2.jpg
    62 KB · Views: 690
Stargazer2006 said:
The notion that this picture (whether real or fake) depicts a swing-wing aircraft is pure speculation, influenced by the remarks of those who claim to see a Tornado or a Tomcat in it. There is no evidence of this in the picture whatsoever!

Not so. As you can see from the attached picture there is clearly a distinctive line that is in the same position as a trailing edge of a VG wing glove. Considering that this picture is 100% fake originating from its very dodgy initial publishing (claims of microwave beams and so on) it is most likely a photo of a conventional plane that has been blurred and distorted to create the impression of being something unique. Since you can also see that the aircraft has a non-tactical multi coloured paint job it is most likely a display Tornado from some European air force commemorating a service milestone or squadron disbandment.
 

Attachments

  • VG.JPG
    VG.JPG
    19.6 KB · Views: 570
"..it is most likely a display Tornado from some European air force"

Not a bad idea ! The colours somewhat remind me to the scheme of
a Tornado of the german MFG2 (photo via www.checksix-shop.de).
With a quick search, I only found a photo from the above, wings in forward
position. But there surely are thousands of photos of this aircraft around,
that could be used as raw material ! Nevertheless, no need to start a com-
petition, I think, we can still make better use of our time. ;D
 

Attachments

  • mystery-1.jpg
    mystery-1.jpg
    21.1 KB · Views: 551
The strange colors can be explained by chromatic or color dispersion. This happens when light rays, of varying wavelengths pass through an optical glass, such as the camera lens. These dispersions become more evident when a picture is taken from a long distance as apparent in the picture below. Same subject, but from a further distance. The distoration of lines and color (notice the increase in red and blue light) are visible, especially when the subject is 'blown-up.' Now complicate the subject by a picture taken tens of thousands of feet away, with the subject presumably moving in excess of 300 kts and a camera of unknown performance, taken without a tripod and wa-la, color dispersion.
 

Attachments

  • Chromatic_aberration_comparison.jpg
    Chromatic_aberration_comparison.jpg
    24.8 KB · Views: 546
In the photo below the light reflecting from the fuselage can cause an apparent "landing light" look to the photo. If the subject was operating where contrails were visible, approximately 20,000 feet and above (assuming Northern CA atmospheric conditions in April), then, I assume, the landing lights should not be on (most airlines turn on their landing light under 10,000 ft).
 

Attachments

  • xb70ship116.jpg
    xb70ship116.jpg
    130.9 KB · Views: 596
The Case of the Mysterious Aircraft, Pt. 1
**COMMENT REGISTRATION OPEN**
So, I was perusing through the Danger Room, when I happened upon a link to an article over at Ares talking about this mysterious aircraft spotted over Northern California. I was like, ‘here we go again with those mysterious aircraft,’ but I thought I’d give it a try since, after all, it was Danger Room linking to the article. Unbeknownst to me the aircraft is pretty damn mysterious looking…

http://www.presidentoor.com/2008/05/20/the-case-of-the-mysterious-aircraft-pt-1/
 
I hope it is a legit government project...But the chance it is a hoax is still too high for me to go hog wild about it.
 
Jemiba said:
"..it is most likely a display Tornado from some European air force"

Not a bad idea ! The colours somewhat remind me to the scheme of
a Tornado of the german MFG2 (photo via www.checksix-shop.de).
With a quick search, I only found a photo from the above, wings in forward
position. But there surely are thousands of photos of this aircraft around,
that could be used as raw material ! Nevertheless, no need to start a com-
petition, I think, we can still make better use of our time. ;D

There is a Luftwaffe det at Holloman which has Tornados for pilot/WSO conversion after they graduate from Euro Nato Joint Jet Training at Sheppard,

http://www.holloman.af.mil/Units/GermanAirForce.aspx

cheers
 
I know this may be frowned upon and or have appeared elsewhere, but this "aircraft" supposedly caught over Glasgow in 2002 must have been flying for the same display team.
 

Attachments

  • scotland2002.jpg
    scotland2002.jpg
    17.1 KB · Views: 313
Not the right forum for that!
 

Attachments

  • ItsaFake.jpg
    ItsaFake.jpg
    16.4 KB · Views: 246
yes fine, apologies.

Given that the other one is questionable, and this one clearly references that, I thought it would be relevant.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom