Mystery aircraft photographed over Texas

[quellish]

So it's a B-2 and the press officer at Whiteman either didn't know or lied when Steve asked if any were flying on the day of the 3 ship sighting?

When certain people asked the PAO at the 509th about the March 10th event, the response was something like "I talked to our schedulers and they say they had nothing there on that day". Over several days the 509th got bombarded with the same question and the response changed to "For operational security reasons we are not saying diddly". They don't like to talk about the movements of national assets.


Asking other units that schedule B-2 flights may have gotten a different set of responses.
Or if you had talked to someone who lives or works near Whiteman, or is involved with another unit at the base, you might hear a story about how two or more B-2's landed that evening. And there might have been a major event going on that week on the Gulf range, that the B-2s may have been previously scheduled to attend.


Either way, the aircraft is about the size of a B-2, operating in plain sight at a location where B-2s are not unheard of. The parts of the shape that are not affected by optical distortion are consistent with a B-2, and even the parts that are affected by optical distortion are consistent with a B-2 under the same conditions.


Feels like a B-2. Smells like a B-2. Must be a new secret aircraft. Huh?

 

[sublight_]

Either way, the aircraft is about the size of a B-2, operating in plain sight at a location where B-2s are not unheard of. The parts of the shape that are not affected by optical distortion are consistent with a B-2, and even the parts that are affected by optical distortion are consistent with a B-2 under the same conditions.

Feels like a B-2. Smells like a B-2. Must be a new secret aircraft. Huh?

I buy that for the Wichita photograph. However, for this other shot, are there B2 shots out there that look just like it?

 

[Triton]

Everyone and their dog knows "TR-3" was misheard "Tier-3" by now, I'd hope.

I guess I should have asked my dogs before posting.

 

[Mat Parry]

When certain people asked the PAO at the 509th about the March 10th event, the response was something like "I talked to our schedulers and they say they had nothing there on that day". Over several days the 509th got bombarded with the same question and the response changed to "For operational security reasons we are not saying diddly". They don't like to talk about the movements of national assets.

Asking other units that schedule B-2 flights may have gotten a different set of responses.

Or if you had talked to someone who lives or works near Whiteman, or is involved with another unit at the base, you might hear a story about how two or more B-2's landed that evening. And there might have been a major event going on that week on the Gulf range, that the B-2s may have been previously scheduled to attend.

Either way, the aircraft is about the size of a B-2, operating in plain sight at a location where B-2s are not unheard of. The parts of the shape that are not affected by optical distortion are consistent with a B-2, and even the parts that are affected by optical distortion are consistent with a B-2 under the same conditions.

Feels like a B-2. Smells like a B-2. Must be a new secret aircraft. Huh?

your narrative is a lot more plausible than any other I have read (especially some of mine! :-[ ). I get the impression however that yours is not a fictional narrative

Fair enough, I don't mind being wrong... as long as I learn, seems I gave far too much credence to the apparent denials.

although to be fair to myself...

FWIW, I'm still open minded on the B-2 vs. new aircraft debate

For what It's worth, my feeling is that the curved trailing edge is an atmospheric/photographic aberration, I am open minded on the debate of B-2 vs. a new type

 

[Ian33]

Every time I see that mystery photo, it reminded me of some thing I saw a long, long time ago. Tonight I finally found what I have been looking for!

 

[Radical]

Maybe it's just a B-2 that's banking?

 

[Jeb]

Every time I see that mystery photo, it reminded me of some thing I saw a long, long time ago. Tonight I finally found what I have been looking for!

Yup. It's where my thought process has been all along. I know I've seen public photos of testing a sub-scale/large model of this, and to me the contrail spacing is right for a twin-engine version.

 

[famvburg]

Sorry if I missed it, but what about atmospheric distortion? ISTR seeing many of the published satellite pics of various Soviet aircraft at Ramenskoye it seems that "atmospheric distortion" was blamed for the clarity of the pics and is partly why in the late '70s the Su-27 was initially thought to be a swing-winger like the F-14. Could this be a B-2 "atmospherically distorted"?

 

[flateric]

we have addition in collection of "Amarillo/Wichita Monster" silly drawings
http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/so-what-were-those-secret-flying-wing-aircraft-spotted-1555124270

 

[Stargazer]

Years ago, the government had to come up with all sorts of cranky stories to keep the public uninformed. "It's an X-5, son." was the answer given to a kid spotter who had seen a secretly tested Yak-23 escaped from Czechoslovakia back in the 1950s. They invented convenient lies to pacify curious folks and keep their secrets safe.

Now what does not compute here as far as I'm concerned is this:

- If the aircraft here was a B-2, why did the officials insist that no B-2 had been flying in that area on that day?
- If it wasn't a B-2, why didn't the officials say "Sure, that was a B-2!" to silence the curious spotters?

What's worse now is that despite official assurance that the aircraft wasn't a B-2, crowds of people who weren't there go to great lengths to prove to those who were there, saw the aircraft, photographed them, that indeed that WAS a B-2! The government doesn't even need to debunk anything with such hords of zealous helpers striving to undermine, even ridicule those who routinely observe such things and are trying to get the truth known!

Being totally unconvinced, sick and tired even, by all the "it's a B-2" nonsense (makes you wonder if the purporters of the B-2 theory even know what a B-2 looks like at times!), I decided to carefully examine the matter. Here is why I think the likelihood of it being a B-2 is extremely thin and why I personally give full credit to those who have seen the aircraft and are willing to put their reputations at stake to defend their claims.

 

[quellish]

- If the aircraft here was a B-2, why did the officials insist that no B-2 had been flying in that area on that day?
- If it wasn't a B-2, why didn't the officials say "Sure, that was a B-2!" to silence the curious spotters?

The B-2's are strategic assets, and they are a very limited resource. USAF and STRATCOM don't like talking about what they're doing, period. The PAO's initial response surprised me (that it was not a "no comment"), but the second response did not.


There was no insistence that B-2s were not flying that day, the PAO said something along the lines of "I talked to our schedulers, and they said nothing was up that day". Keep in mind this is not the kind of question PAOs are used to answering, and a squadron PAO isn't plugged into USAF policy decisions. There was no opportunity for the Air Force as an organization to respond to this inquiry.
PAOs work with press and news releases, conduct tours and events, update web pages, work with media representatives, etc. You can see a brief description of the job here:
http://www.airforce.com/careers/detail/public-affairs-officer/
Description of 35PX:
http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/afoffjobs/bl35px.htm


Public affairs specialist is described here:
http://www.airforce.com/careers/detail/public-affairs-specialist/

 

[xstatic3000]

What's worse now is that despite official assurance that the aircraft wasn't a B-2, crowds of people who weren't there go to great lengths to prove to those who were there, saw the aircraft, photographed them, that indeed that WAS a B-2! The government doesn't even need to debunk anything with such hords of zealous helpers striving to undermine, even ridicule those who routinely observe such things and are trying to get the truth known!

Maybe I missed something, but I don't think that anyone here is trying to undermine or ridicule anything surrounding this reported sighting. People here have been using deductive reasoning to examine a series of photographs taken at a great distance by amateur/hobbyist photographers using standard equipment, of moving aircraft.

Based on what the members here have been saying, there are a number of reasons why a object in a picture taken under these conditions might appear to be something else. As we have mentioned, B-2s have been known to operate in the areas where these aircraft were spotted, and in similar formations, during daylight hours.

Also, as has been said, neither DOD nor it's contractors have been known in the past to allow sight-sensitive aircraft to operate during daylight hours away from the ranges.

Again, due to a lack of any other supporting evidence, we don't know exactly what aircraft are shown in these photos, no matter how much we want to believe that something exciting to aviation enthusiasts has been uncovered through sheer chance. This is what happened when the first grainy photos of the RQ-170 surfaced. There is absolutely a possibility that some sort of previously unknown airframe(s) has been captured in these pictures. However, as of right now there is much more evidence pointing to these being pictures of known aircraft, and very little other than "those don't look like B-2s" suggesting otherwise. Certainly not "nonsensical", as you put it.

 

[donnage99]

Maybe I missed something, but I don't think that anyone here is trying to undermine or ridicule anything surrounding this reported sighting. People here have been using deductive reasoning to examine a series of photographs taken at a great distance by amateur/hobbyist photographers using standard equipment, of moving aircraft.

The only flying wing with 2 engines in operation is B-2. So the question comes down to whether it's B-2 or something else. So far all evidence points toward it being something else. Even blurred, a B-2 trailing edge still looks very different. Magnified and sharpened picture shows something that would take a far stretch to believe to be B-2. Assuming for the sake of evidence that it is B-2, it must have been flying at an awkward angle over period of time, which doesn't make sense. Nothing can conclusively rule out to be B-2, but to say that evidence is on the side of it being B-2 is simply detached from reality.

 

[Stargazer]

Certainly not "nonsensical", as you put it.

What I deemed "nonsensical", xstatic3000, was the insistence on it being the B-2 while there is far more evidence that it isn't than the contrary. I do not agree with you that "there is much more evidence pointing to these being pictures of known aircraft". What known manned aircraft can you make out in these pictures? Certainly none that I know of.

The only flying wing with 2 engines in operation is B-2. So the question comes down to whether it's B-2 or something else. So far all evidence points toward it being something else. Even blurred, a B-2 trailing edge still looks very different. Magnified and sharpened picture shows something that would take a far stretch to believe to be B-2. Assuming for the sake of evidence that it is B-2, it must have been flying at an awkward angle over period of time, which doesn't make sense. Nothing can conclusively rule out to be B-2, but to say that evidence is on the side of it being B-2 is simply detached from reality.

That is exactly my point, donnage99! And precisely what I tried to develop through the B-2 picture analysis. Glad you wrote this, I'm feeling less lonely now!

 

[flateric]

what you mean under 'awkward angle over period of time'? we only have one frame of many that shows planform barely visible and useful for some investigation. Steve never said formation was flying right over him

 

[repsol]

The fact that the AF made quite a public display only a few days later with B-2's does make you wonder if they were trying to blur the story as much as possible. Nothing to see here folks, just B-2's, see, move along. I will say as a lurker around here this has made for great reading!

 

[Stargazer]

what you mean under 'awkward angle over period of time'? we only have one frame of many that shows planform barely visible and useful for some investigation. Steve never said formation was flying right over him

*IF* this was a B-2, for it to look so narrow it would have to be seen at an angle (see my #5 image) not just by Steve Douglass over Amarillo but also a few minutes before by his secret AF contact "Tom" who called him to tell him to look at it, and probably a little more still until it disappeared out of sight. This means that the airplane would have been flying at that angle in a straight line for a prolonged period of time, which is what I described as "awkward". Besides not being very likely, this would also mean that when getting further away the leading edge angle would have become wider (see my #1 image), making it look more or less like a B-2 again. That's not what we see in the photos.

 

[quellish]

what you mean under 'awkward angle over period of time'? we only have one frame of many that shows planform barely visible and useful for some investigation. Steve never said formation was flying right over him

Steve and Dean have released several photos of the objects. One of them (one of Dean's photos) appears to show curved leading and trailing edges on one of the objects.


These objects appear to be quite far away from the observers (in terms of ground distance) at FL38-FL43. Every angle is going to be....awkward.


Example of another awkward angle:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/bluedharma/4204237376/in/photostream/
I may have some more from much lower altitude from my personal collection. Flying wing aircraft can be challenging to observe.

 

[flateric]

Triple B-2 flyover in moving colors (please don't pay attention to annotation)
http://youtu.be/xI_52Rk_7jY

 

[bobbymike]

flateric - in all close-ups it was easy to see the B-2's saw tooth back end BUT if you watch right to the end the final close-up seems to mirror the appearance of a straight back end of our mystery aircraft.

Although I am sorry to say it (I really wanted a new airplane as I realize I may see only one more generation of military aircraft before I die) this appears to be a B-2 3 ship flight IMHO. :'(

 

[LowObservable]

...except for the awkward fact that the only organization that is capable of mounting a B-2 three-ship said it wasn't.

 

[Stargazer]

Please bobbymike, where in this video do you ever see the B-2 looking like the photo below?

In fact, can you find a single photo of a B-2 in flight that shows it to be an equilateral triangle?

I haven't and I bet you won't. Read what I posted in the previous page if you haven't and then honestly rethink the odds of this shape being a B-2. Pretty thin.

 

[LowObservable]

We're at this stage...

 

[sferrin]

...except for the awkward fact that the only organization that is capable of mounting a B-2 three-ship said it wasn't.

Well THAT'S never happened before. I want it to be a new plane as much as the next guy but the likelihood of a large, new, aircraft being in service in quantity whilst staying under wraps is effectively zero. Even before the internet they couldn't keep the existence of the Blackbird or F-117 hidden. We didn't know specifically what they were but we knew they were flying "something" out there from various sightings and other hints. Hiding a single, tiny, Bird of Prey is one thing. Hiding 3 (likely more) of something as large as those in the pictures is something else entirely.

 

[Static]

USAF back-peddling - a sorry excuse for a cover-up. First they (two sources( said they had no B-2s flying, The the press gets a hold of it so they try to cover their butts by muddying the waters and sending B-2s up over Amarillo in a very public display.

Now they can (without actually lying) say B-2s were over Amarillo. I expected this - straight out of the playbook.

From Bill Sweetman: Quote - “The Amarillo jets were B-2 training sorties,” an U.S. Air Force official with direct knowledge of the incident told USNI News on Monday.

The jets were enroute to the Utah Test and Training Range to practice dropping bombs after a brief delay at the Melrose Air Force Range in New Mexico.Flying out of Whiteman Air Force Base, Mo., the B-2s would likely have navigated via Amarillo to get to Melrose Range. - Endquote

So the 509th PA office responded to our initial inquiry with a deliberately false statement? And why is that denial not even mentioned in this story?

LINK: http://deepbluehorizon.blogspot.com/2014/04/usaf-mystery-airplanes-were-b-2s.html

 

[sferrin]

USAF back-peddling - a sorry excuse for a cover-up. First they (two sources( said they had no B-2s flying, The the press gets a hold of it so they try to cover their butts by muddying the waters and sending B-2s up over Amarillo in a very public display.

Now they can (without actually lying) say B-2s were over Amarillo. I expected this - straight out of the playbook.

And of course it's completely unpossible the person answering the phones the first time didn't have everybody's flight schedule right there on their smartphone right?

 

[bobbymike]

Please bobbymike, where in this video do you ever see the B-2 looking like the photo below?

In fact, can you find a single photo of a B-2 in flight that shows it to be an equilateral triangle?

I haven't and I bet you won't. Read what I posted in the previous page if you haven't and then honestly rethink the odds of this shape being a B-2. Pretty thin.

As I said in my humble opinion.

That stated it is the onus of those espousing a 'new aircraft' to explain why for the seemingly first time in the history of 'black' aircraft sightings the US flew them in broad daylight over areas likely to be captured by interested civilian parties and posted all over the internet within hours? Does it go back to my original theory as a 'show of force' for the Russians, 'Hey we got these new stealth bombers careful in the Crimea'.

Occam says the simplest solution is usually the correct one.

Don't get me wrong I really, REALLY want this to be a new aircraft but I am a long way from being convinced.

 

[LowObservable]

I am absolutely certain that the person responding to the query did not have the schedule on their smartphone.


On the other hand, except in the case of NTSB interns confirming the names of the Asiana 214 pilots, that's not how PA generally works.

 

[sferrin]

I am absolutely certain that the person responding to the query did not have the schedule on their smartphone.

And you're equally certain that all B-2 movements are disseminated to the lowest level and public knowledge? I'd be shocked if there were a "here's where all our B-2s are at anytime just in case Joe Six-Pack wants to know" board.

 

[Static]

Two PAOs at Whiteman had ample time to check with schedulers about B-2 deployments. One answered the query before the story broke, the other - a day after the story broke. It wasn't as if just answered the queries off the cuff or didn't have time to consult the schedulers.





They could have said "We'll check and get back to you." but didn't. I inquiry to Whiteman was March 10 and was answered on March 28th.


When Dave Deptula was asked by AVWK his response was "We have nothing for you."



Then once the story gets international play - suddenly the skies above Amarillo are filled with B-2s.


I contact Whiteman again - they now refuse to comment on operational matters - but a few days later Dave Deptula volunteers information to AVWK to "expect a six B-2 sortie at any moment" without being asked - setting the stage for any future "flying triangle" reports (my guess) hoping they'd be chalked off as being B-2s.


Then the (lone aircraft) Kansas sighting, the USAF's "they are just B-2s" story planted firmly in place.


My guess is that (originally) the right hand didn't know what the left hand was doing - but found out later they had screwed up - hence the dog and pony show over Amarillo.


It's textbook stuff, straight from the "Cover-ups for Dummies" playbook - denial, disinformation and discredit.

 

[sferrin]

Or (and far more likely) they're just screwing with the public to make the other guy wonder.

 

[Triton]

Please bobbymike, where in this video do you ever see the B-2 looking like the photo below?

In fact, can you find a single photo of a B-2 in flight that shows it to be an equilateral triangle?

I haven't and I bet you won't. Read what I posted in the previous page if you haven't and then honestly rethink the odds of this shape being a B-2. Pretty thin.

Thank you for your drawings and photographic analysis, Stargazer. I am not convinced either way and am going to keep an open mind about this issue.

 

[mz]

(pictures)

The problem with your last picture is that there is another way that the plane appears with a "squished profile": If it's flying straight and wings level but it is not directly flying over you. That way you are partly looking at the aircraft from the side.

Say if it's flying 10 km up, straight, and the closest horizontal distance it passes you is 10 km to the side. At that point the profile would be squished 40%.

I think the photos fit a B-2 explanation reasonably well, and don't warrant so much speculation as has happened

 

[Stargazer]

Thank you for your drawings and photographic analysis, Stargazer. I am not convinced either way and am going to keep an open mind about this issue.

Say if it's flying 10 km up, straight, and the closest horizontal distance it passes you is 10 km to the side. At that point the profile would be squished 40%.

Thanks Triton for noticing. And thanks mz, too. I appreciate that someone finally brings some arguments to discuss my pictures.

Inasmuch as I agree with you about the fact that from a distance, the profile would be squished, it would only look like a real triangle for a few moments, when the aircraft thrust line is perpendicular to our line of vision. After that it would become slanted, and in that case, the exhaust trail would no longer seem perpendicular to the triangle but slanted. I've attempted to do a quick sketch to further explain this (I hope it's clear enough).

 

[mz]

Thank you for your drawings and photographic analysis, Stargazer. I am not convinced either way and am going to keep an open mind about this issue.

Say if it's flying 10 km up, straight, and the closest horizontal distance it passes you is 10 km to the side. At that point the profile would be squished 40%.

Thanks Triton for noticing. And thanks mz, too. I appreciate that someone finally brings some arguments to discuss my pictures.

Inasmuch as I agree with you about the fact that from a distance, the profile would be squished, it would only look like a real triangle for a few moments, when the aircraft thrust line is perpendicular to our line of vision. After that it would become slanted, and in that case, the exhaust trail would no longer seem perpendicular to the triangle but slanted. I've attempted to do a quick sketch to further explain this (I hope it's clear enough).

I think so, yes. I'm not entirely sure but I think if the aircraft is on a plane (excuse the pun) then the wingtip to wingtip axis would point to a vanishing point in the observer's horizon (if the person sitting 10 km lower is also on a plane).

http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,21745.msg218770.html#msg218770
From these pictures the wingtip to wingtip axis is not entirely perpendicular to the wake.

It would be quite a coincidence if the plane was passing directly overhead. So some squishing is more likely happen. Also shear distortion, maybe in two axes.

Further, if it's flying at 300 m/s, then 10 km takes 30 seconds. There's time to take photos with varying levels of perspective distortion.

 

[quellish]

It would be quite a coincidence if the plane was passing directly overhead. So some squishing is more likely happen. Also shear distortion, maybe in two axes.

Further, if it's flying at 300 m/s, then 10 km takes 30 seconds. There's time to take photos with varying levels of perspective distortion.

We have two sets of images taken at approximately the same location from two different cameras. We'll call Steve's camera the S camera and Dean's camera the D camera.
Most of the attention has been on one of the photos from the D camera. Steve and Dean have released more than one image from each camera. S camera images contain some EXIF metadata about the camera and image.


Images from both cameras show pin cushion distortion that is typical of a telephoto lens that is zoom to near it's limits. You can seem some of the effects of this in each of the images, this is highlighted in one of the images below. Note that the actual effects of this type of distortion are across the whole lens. Pincusion distortion will affect the image little in the center, increasing dramatically as you move out from the center. Pincushion distortion will make straight lines or edges appear concave.


D images do appear to show high order distortions distributed unevenly across the lens. These kinds of distortions can become more invasive at high levels of magnification with a telephoto lens. This is again very common even in high end cameras and telescopes, and these types of distortions are one of the reasons that reconnaisance satellites use ground calibration targets. It is difficult to quanitfy and map the higher order distortions in Dean's images without a calibration target image. Identifying discrete areas of high order distortion within the D images is especially challenging given that the majority of the image is featureless and full of noise.


Both the pincushion distortion and the high order distortions are caused by the geometric of the light path - the lenses. For that reason they are generally classified as geometric distortions.


That said, there do appear to be a number of consistent visual artifacts from the D camera in the released images. These are highlighted below as lens artifacts, though these are only the most easily identifable instances. These appear to areas on the lens or mirror that have accumulated dirt or partially opaque matter. The distribution across the lens follows a pattern suggesting the leftovers of fluid droplets across the curved surface of the lens.


Images from the S camera do not have these visual artifacts. The S camera was used to photograph the same object that has been the subject of so much attention, but those images do not appear to show the same concave edges. Instead it seems to show a straight, or slightly angled trailing edge and some degree of specular reflection from the leading edge. Other photos in the series show a distinct specular reflection from the leading edge of each of the three objects.


You can read a little more about these kinds of distortion here (this is fairly digestible):
http://scien.stanford.edu/pages/labsite/2007/psych221/projects/07/geometric_distortion/project.htm


...Or visit your local physicist.


Adobe actually now has a whole suite of integrated tools for dealing with the geometric distortion caused by lenses. I can't speak to wether these are worth trying.

 

[Triton]

An Elvis sighting?

 

[J.A.W.]

Dang,
& I'd figured those two 'artifact' shadows were - the real new stealth aircraft being tested in daylight,
flying stepped up in altitude from the good ol' B-2s as they ran 'interference' - as 'focus target' decoys..

 

[xstatic3000]

Two PAOs at Whiteman had ample time to check with schedulers about B-2 deployments. One answered the query before the story broke, the other - a day after the story broke. It wasn't as if just answered the queries off the cuff or didn't have time to consult the schedulers.

They could have said "We'll check and get back to you." but didn't. I inquiry to Whiteman was March 10 and was answered on March 28th.

Perhaps I'm a cynical (former) Fed - but I provided information to and requested information from PAOs from the USAF and USN for years. Without disparaging any of them, it's really hard for me to believe that the responses to the sighting are part of some kind of elaborate cover-up. Keep in mind that here in the States, "PAO Specialist" is an entry level position - some of the active duty ones that I've encountered were quite literally teenagers right out of basic, and quite a few of the civilian specialists that I've met are recent college graduates. I've personally been misquoted and had my words taken out of context more times than I can remember by PAOs.


The PAOs at locations associated with high visibility programs receive an incredibly high volume of inquiries from the public and the press every day. A person I know who was once a specialist at NAS Oceana literally received hundreds of emails from people wanting F-14 flyovers, especially when it was announced that they were being retired. In addition to the standard requests for tours and noise complaints, I can imagine that Whiteman's PAO Office receives a ton of emails daily from people who "saw something" just based on the high-profile nature and unique appearance of the B-2. It's actually hard to imagine a scenario where a GS-7 specialist would take a significant amount of time to check with the 509th and the 131st to get confirmation of where their aircraft were on a particular day and time - even when the person asking is a well known and respected aviation writer and blogger, or an esteemed veteran aviation journalist.


It's also clear that the other response was from a more senior person who after a meeting, generated a canned response for the extremely high volume of queries received after this story broke. Considering the current threat environment and geopolitical situation, we shouldn't really expect to get an accurate official answer about the whereabouts of one of our most valuable and sensitive National Assets. The "Air Force Official" who spoke to the USNI reporter was speaking off the record, and merely stated that the pictures are likely of training sorties. Its important to note that there was no confirmation of any specific flights at a particular date and time.


That said, anything is possible.

 

[sublight_]

Images from both cameras show pin cushion distortion that is typical of a telephoto lens that is zoom to near it's limits. You can seem some of the effects of this in each of the images, this is highlighted in one of the images below. Note that the actual effects of this type of distortion are across the whole lens. Pincusion distortion will affect the image little in the center, increasing dramatically as you move out from the center. Pincushion distortion will make straight lines or edges appear concave.

Those dots are not pincushion distortion. Those dots are dust particles that have collected on the face of the CCD or CMOS imager when the lens was removed from the DSLR.

Additionally, almost every Nikon and Canon lens has built in firmware to compensate for Pincushion distortions caused by the optics. If they did not have this, we would be buying $20,000 lenses. As a result, we have fantastically accurate images even at the limit of these lenses.