Space Shuttle Over Kansas: A Discussion

[dlgoff]

Being from Kansas, I thought a little discussion on this one might be appropriate. Looks like the space shuttle piggy-backed to me.
http://www.kansascity.com/news/breaking_news/story/1025246.html"

http://media.kansascity.com/smedia/2009/02/09/13/ufo2.embedded.prod_affiliate.81.jpg

 

[russ_watters]

It does look like the space shuttle (or something else) piggybacked, or a similar configuration to a ground-effect craft:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wig18.gif

I can't think of any high performance aircraft with an over-tail engine nacelle, though. It would be a possible configuration for a UAV, though.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I think it's an E-3 AWACS or similar.

 

[dlgoff]

Why would the Air Force not want to comment on the subject if it was just a well know airplane?

McConnell Air Force Base declined to comment.

Maybe just a waste of time for them?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Why would the Air Force not want to comment on the subject if it was just a well know airplane?

Maybe just a waste of time for them?

I don't know anything about this particular report, but the military often takes a few weeks to figure out what they were doing. Recall that the Phoenix Lights - the second event that night that made the evening news - was only explained [IIRC] weeks later. [it may have been much longer than that].

Also, it might have been a test flight of some kind - perhaps a new AWACS aircraft?

 

[dlgoff]

Okay. Then I'll be waiting to hear what they have to say.

 

[DaveC426913]

I think it looks like a Saab Drakken (with its air scoops way forward)
http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/avj35_2.gif

with a tail-mounted prototype engine in testing.

 

[DaveC426913]

Ohhhhhh! I've been looking at it as if the craft is advancing. It makes a lot more sense if it's receding. It almost looks like Ivan's AWACS.

 

[russ_watters]

It looks like a right rear quarter aspect to me, Dave. I think the fuselage looks too thick and short to be an E-3, but it could be something similar. The report implies a high performance aircraft, though (not that the report is necessarily completely accurate...).

Note to UFO enthusiasts: except that we're missing some context info that presumably the photographer provided when he reported it (specifically, camera/lens info, if the photo is cropped), the tree in the foreground is very helpful. Unless the plane is absolutely huge and/or the camera on a long lens, the plane must be inside of a mile away and only a few hundred feet off the ground. But either way, with a tape measure between the location the photo was shot and the tree, you can get a range of potential sizes and distances.

 

[DaveC426913]

It looks like a right rear quarter aspect to me, Dave.

Yep. When I was first looking at it I thought it was right front quarter, but right rear works much better.

The report says he was facing East but doesn't say whether the craft is shown advancing or receding.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The angle of the shot might account for distortions in the appearance of the fuselage.

 

[russ_watters]

The angle of the shot might account for distortions in the appearance of the fuselage.

Possible, not sure. Tough to pin down the exact angle we're looking at it. I don't see any under-wing engine nacelles, though. That's the main reason I'm thinking what's above is an engine.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Possible, not sure. Tough to pin down the exact angle we're looking at it. I don't see any under-wing engine nacelles, though. That's the main reason I'm thinking what's above is an engine.

Hmmmmmm, you're right. It seems that we should be able to see the outline of at least one engine under the wing projected towards our left [as viewed in the photo].

 

[Ivan Seeking]

This is close to the view that I imagined but with the camera closer to the line along the length of the aircraft - closer to a frontal view.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-3_Sentry

 

[DaveC426913]

Googling, I've found some AWACS dishes mounted on some odd choices for craft. Perhaps this is a dish mounted on a Vulcan or HP Victor other such craft that has in-fuselage engine(s).

 

[nottheone]

AWACS? I think it was a modifed 57 Studebaker. Which makes as much sense as the stuff other people have been saying. It doesn't look anything like anything that has been suggested so far. More likely a doctored photo if it was digital. If it was actually taken with film then I might be impressed. But whatever camera he had I don't buy the slow lens excuse, he would have had plenty of time to take more than one picture. Also a slow lens implies a longer exposure if anything, nothing to do with how quickly you can take a second shot. I don't see much blurring so the shutter speed couldn't have been too slow.

 

[DaveC426913]

AWACS? I think it was a modifed 57 Studebaker. Which makes as much sense as the stuff other people have been saying. It doesn't look anything like anything that has been suggested so far. More likely a doctored photo if it was digital. If it was actually taken with film then I might be impressed. But whatever camera he had I don't buy the slow lens excuse, he would have had plenty of time to take more than one picture. Also a slow lens implies a longer exposure if anything, nothing to do with how quickly you can take a second shot. I don't see much blurring so the shutter speed couldn't have been too slow.

Lots of rhetoric here, but surprisingly devoid of useful content.

You don't think it looks like what people have been saying.
You apparently know how long he had to take the shot.

 

[nottheone]

I was in the Air Force and I'm a photographer, both film and digital, amongst other things. I don't think it looks like any of the suggested things because I have seen them in real life. I would have had plenty of time to take at least 3 to 10 pictures with a 35mm unless that thing was going mach 8 and I still would have got off more than one. I have photographed fighters doing an FCF (functional check flight). They go full afterburner, sit on their tail at the end of the runway and straight up until they are out of sight, it takes a couple of minutes afterburner the whole way. You might notice in the other picture the sky wasn't overcast so the cloud ceiling wasn't low. Maybe I am missing something with the slow lens excuse, feel free to explain it to me, I've been known to be wrong.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I was in the Air Force and I'm a photographer, both film and digital, amongst other things. I don't think it looks like any of the suggested things because I have seen them in real life.

How is this different from seeing them in a photo? Beyond that, most people here have probably seen many of these aircrafts.

 

[Office_Shredder]

I would argue seeing them in real life is less useful than having seen them in a photograph here

 

[DaveC426913]

Maybe I am missing something with the slow lens excuse, feel free to explain it to me, I've been known to be wrong.

I don't really get where this whole 'slow lens is no excuse' argument is going.

Is the argument that the photographer is lying? Or is it indicative of a hoax? What?

How does 'he would have had plenty of time' get us anywhere towards an answer?

Seriously. He was there. It's his account. Who are any of us to say what should have or could have happened? The account is what it is.

Or am I missing something?

 

[russ_watters]

AWACS? I think it was a modifed 57 Studebaker. Which makes as much sense as the stuff other people have been saying. It doesn't look anything like anything that has been suggested so far. More likely a doctored photo if it was digital. If it was actually taken with film then I might be impressed. But whatever camera he had I don't buy the slow lens excuse, he would have had plenty of time to take more than one picture. Also a slow lens implies a longer exposure if anything, nothing to do with how quickly you can take a second shot. I don't see much blurring so the shutter speed couldn't have been too slow.

For someone who claims to have some relevant knowledge, this post shows surprisingly little knowledge and a lot of attitude. "The slow lens excuse", for example - some cheap point and shoot cameras have surprisingly slow cycle times. It can take a total of couple of seconds to focus, capture, record, refocus... and that has nothing at all to do with exposure time, which is what the quote was actually referring to. You're mixing two completely separate issues.

A slow lens (high f ratio) is a simple and reasonable explanation for why the craft is not sharp but the tree is.

 

[russ_watters]

How does 'he would have had plenty of time' get us anywhere towards an answer?

Seriously. He was there. It's his account. Who are any of us to say what should have or could have happened? The account is what it is.

Heck, the guy doesn't even have to be right! Maybe he did have more time to take more photos but was fumbling with the camera. Maybe he sneezed and accidentally turned it off. It really doesn't matter - none of that has anything to do with the content of the photo. It is not relevant contextual information.

 

[russ_watters]

Here's a photo of an E-3 taken with a 4:00 aspect. Note the engines are visible and note the dish is separated from the tail. A 5:00 aspect might show them on top of each other, but I haven't found a good pic online showing a view from further back. Maybe I'll try to duplicate it in MS Flight Sim. You'd really need to be specific about it to know for sure if there is any viewing aspect from which you wouldn't be able to see the engines and see the dish and tail blended together.

 

[Chronos]

I believe the US airforce policy is to refuse to comment on anything not cleared by the pentagon. That creates a lot of public suspiscion, but does make sense.

 

[Orion1]

Aurora strategic reconnaissance vehicle...


That aircraft has been identified as the SR-91 Aurora, with a prototype Mach 4 jet.

Aurora, a Mach 4 SR-91 - 200,000-ft. altitude strategic reconnaissance vehicle.

It flew fast like a jet, made a whirling sound and left an odd glow. The object came out of the clouds really fast. It sounded kind of like a jet but much, much softer and had a whirling sound with it. There was a odd pinkish glow in the sky behind it. The flying machine's exterior looked black and shiny. The object came no closer than 1,000 feet above the ground. It swooped in as if it was on a bombing run, then in one smooth motion, it went back up.

I am very pleased with the progress that the Lockheed engineers have made with this project.

Reference:
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/recon/aurora/"
http://media.kansascity.com/smedia/2009/02/09/13/ufo1.standalone.prod_affiliate.81.jpg"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurora_(aircraft)"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Aurora_x-plane_2.jpg"

 

[russ_watters]

Lol, ok. There is no "Aurora" spy plane. The word is an obsolete code name for the F-117 from decades ago. People picked-up on it at the time and made some assumptions about what it might be...assumptions that were wrong.

 

[Orion1]

X-Plane flight simulator...


Russ, the Aurora is available for in flight simulation on the X-Plane flight simulator.

Why not take the Aurora on a few simulator flights to effectively test the Aurora's flight performance and capabilities?

Reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-Plane_(simulator)"

 

[Ivan Seeking]

A flight simulator is not evidence for anything.

However, we certainly have advanced aircraft designs not known to the public [not supposed to be known]. Whether they call it the Aurora or the Magic Flying Machine is irrelevant.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

btw, I was thinking of an E-3 from approximately a 1:00 or 2:00 view.

 

[russ_watters]

Russ, the Aurora is available for in flight simulation on the X-Plane flight simulator.

Why not take the Aurora on a few simulator flights to effectively test the Aurora's flight performance and capabilities?

Reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-Plane_(simulator)"

I own X-Plane, it is one of the best flight simulators out there. You can also fly, on Mars, a plane designed for that purpose. Needless to say, that plane doesn't exist either.

The wiki on the Aurora is quite informative and the first sentence particularly helpful:

Aurora (also credited as the SR-91 Aurora) is the popular name for a hypothesised United States reconnaissance aircraft, believed by conspiracy theorists to be capable of hypersonic flight (speeds of over Mach 5).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurora_(aircraft )

Being the fan that I am of the Lockheed Skunk Works, I really wish that it would exist. I even have a book specifically about the Aurora. Sadly, it is mostly science fiction.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

But we certainly have advanced aircraft designs not yet intended for public knowledge.

Note also that wiki is no more a definitive source than is a game.

 

[nottheone]

For someone who claims to have some relevant knowledge, this post shows surprisingly little knowledge and a lot of attitude. "The slow lens excuse", for example - some cheap point and shoot cameras have surprisingly slow cycle times. It can take a total of couple of seconds to focus, capture, record, refocus... and that has nothing at all to do with exposure time, which is what the quote was actually referring to. You're mixing two completely separate issues.

A slow lens (high f ratio) is a simple and reasonable explanation for why the craft is not sharp but the tree is.

This is what he said, "The only problem was I had a real slow lens... . I wasn't planning on taking a picture of anything moving," he said.

This implied to me that he had a camera with a removable lens, not a fixed lens camera with auto-focus. I assumed he was something of a photographer. It also implies that he had another faster lens. He says he takes still life photo's as a hobby, again it implies he isn't using a POS. And as I said it takes a considerable amount of time for even a fast plane to disappear from sight on a clear day. It would have had to disappear in a couple of seconds for him not to take another shot so anything moving that fast would have made the one he did take blurry. I saw a bolide once which was presumably over a hundred thousand feet up going pretty fast (Much faster than any plane anyway since it never came down) and it took 5 minutes to disappear over the horizon. It was classic, it was burning different colors and left a smoke trail, that was on the east coast in the late 60's, reported by hundreds. The newspapers said an expert called it a bolide, not my term

As far as the AWAC goes, a close look at the picture is showing a white glare off of the fuselage right above the cockpit area which would be air and match the background sky color if it was an AWACS.

Since no SAAB I have ever seen has something stuck on the top like in the picture it doesn't look like that either to me.

Sorry to be so uninformed but I'm only 58, maybe when I have as much knowledge and experience as you I'll have better opinions. Like I said I have been known to be wrong but I can't see how ANY camera could have prevented him from taking more than one shot.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Possibly related to advanced [secret] aircraft testing:
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/northcounty/20060423-9999-1n23bigboom.html

Note also that secrecy is one of the primary reasons that the Groom Lake testing facility [Area 51] exists. I think it is a foregone conclusion that the military has secrets, but by definition that means that we likely don't know anything about speed, range, altitude, avionics, stealthiness, etc. Those would be the big secrets.

 

[DaveC426913]

Sorry to be so uninformed but I'm only 58, maybe when I have as much knowledge and experience as you I'll have better opinions.

Better opinions require knowledge, sure, but what they require even more of is logic and critical-thinking skills. This is why I challenged your first post. It's mostly rhetoric it doesn't really contribute to solving the problem.

Like I said I have been known to be wrong but I can't see how ANY camera could have prevented him from taking more than one shot.

I ask again: what is your point? Is it your claim that this UFO account is best explained by the witness lying? Because if it isn't then this line of reasoning is pointless.