Mysterious Aircraft Spotted At Area 51

[Q-nimbus]

A VERY interesting satellite picture was taken of a mysterious aircraft at the scoot and hide hangar at the south end of Area 51.

So, let the speculation game begin…

I can’t help but notice the simularities in timing between the sighting of the triangle overhead Amarillo in march 2014 and this satellite image and the once again rising tensions between Russia and Ukraine.

First of all, while difficult to judge, the airplane seems about the size of an F16, based on the width of the taxiway of 15 meters. So it’s about fighter sized… NGAD prototype?

And who can tell what the mysterious structure is that surrounds it?

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/44057/mysterious-aircraft-spotted-at-area-51-in-unprecedented-satellite-image

 

[sublight_]

No it wasn't.

 

[littlebit]

Interesting. Also, does the shadow seem weird to anyone else or just me? I mean, how it appears around the wings and especially the tips. And what's up with the big black blob in front of the structure surrounding it?
EDIT: Also, I can't help but think of the F-16XL, even if there's definitely some slight differences in planform/wing shape.

 

[TomS]

I'm liking the theory that this is just an image printed on top of the portable shelter. A deception effort or, at least, a joke being played on observers. A transparent shelter makes no sense at all for this site, but a little joke at the expense of the OSINT geospatial community wouldn't be out of line.

Edit": See post # 23. I've changed my mind.

 

[littlebit]

I'm liking the theory that this is just an image printed on top of the portable shelter. A deception effort or, at least, a joke being played on observers. A transparent shelter makes no sense at all for this site, but a little joke at the expense of the OSINT geospatial community wouldn't be out of line.

Exactly. I might have some bad depth perception, but I was thinking it almost looked like some of the shadow was printed on/painted on, and then more real slight shadows were outside it. There's a whole patch extending from and ahead of the left wing that looks almost the same shade of brown as the body that I don't see reflected on the right, or if there is a similar form on the right it's completely drowned out by shadow.

 

[Nigelhg]

Prove to me the photo is real first

Read the article- it's real- the speculation is that the gear collapsed and they were part way through putting up a portable shelter or is it just a deliberate distraction/misdirection?

 

[bob225]

Reading the drive article, the object is seen over at least a 3 day period, mid week.

The guys and girls at Area 51 are not going to leave something sight sensitive out in the open for 3 days.

worst case you'd chuck some netting over it as well as the pop up hangar.

My moneys on nothing like these, but painted on top just to wind up The Drive

https://www.rubbuk.com/rubb-market-sectors/military-buildings/

 

[Orionblamblam]

Area51 employers have something else to do than making joke,

Maybe, but there is *always* time for making jokes. Hell, some airmen made a fake flying saucer (or at least part of one, visible through a partly-open hangar door) at Wright-Pat decades ago just to screw with some touring dignitaries.

 

[littlebit]

This is the RQ-190 "BrownStar XOV". The mysterious BrownStar has been spotted in several different locations. *insert additional long, non-sensical clickbait speculation here*

View attachment 673411

Dare I say it… perhaps this is the program funded under the codename… the pseudonym… the codeword… the alias… the speculative designation… the theoretical nickname… Aurora…?

In all seriousness, as much as I want to believe this is a painting on top of a building, because that would be the flat-out funniest thing to come out of ‘ol 51 for years, I’m of the opinion it’s probably just some model they’ve thrown up to spook everyone else. Why would it still be on the runway for almost a week if it was a gear failure, with no obvious sign of even an attempt to move it? Why put a cover over it that doesn’t cover it?

 

[rooster]

See how large the shadow is in the front of the structure? A skeleton structure or translucent structure doesn't create shadows that big. Its either a fake or a picture on the top of an opaque structure. Science and optics don't lie. I don't even think the lines of the shadows look consistent. For that matter where are the other shadows from the skeleton structure? There aren't any and there damned well should be. It does however give people a nice reference for how large that hangar next to it is.... There's secrets there for sure but this is fakery

 

[Orionblamblam]

This Why put a cover over it that doesn’t cover it?

Because it is, in fact, The Real Deal. They've taken a real, tested, flown, proven bleeding edge prototype that the world is simply not ready for, and plopped it out on front of Gort and everybody. And they made it look like a cheap gag, so nobody will take it seriously. And so when it is seen *again* at some point, it will still be seen as a joke.

 

[skyblue]

See how large the shadow is in the front of the structure? A skeleton structure or translucent structure doesn't create shadows that big. Its either a fake or a picture on the top of an opaque structure. Science and optics don't lie. I don't even think the lines of the shadows look consistent. For that matter where are the other shadows from the skeleton structure? There aren't any and there damned well should be. It does however give people a nice reference for how large that hangar next to it is.... There's secrets there for sure but this is fakery

Why wouldn't it? Greenhouses cast dark shadows all the time.

 

[Rhinocrates]

The runway centreline can be seen continuing under the shelter, indicating that it is transparent. Also, if the plane were painted on the outside, it would cast a shadow further towards the top of the image. Doesn't mean the plane isn't merely a mockup, practical joke, or an ambitious floral arrangement in a greenhouse though.

 

[archipeppe]

I can’t help but notice the simularities in timing between the sighting of the triangle overhead Amarillo in march 2014 and this satellite image and the once again rising tensions between Russia and Ukraine.

It don't look like a triangle, is more conventional shaped.
Real or not has a fuselage, a delta wing with some winglets (?) on the edges.

Frankly it resemble (more or less) a Swedish Draken, that is about the size of an F-16.

 

[Q-nimbus]

I can’t help but notice the simularities in timing between the sighting of the triangle overhead Amarillo in march 2014 and this satellite image and the once again rising tensions between Russia and Ukraine.

It don't look like a triangle, is more conventional shaped.
Real or not has a fuselage, a delta wing with some winglets (?) on the edges.

Frankly it resemble (more or less) a Swedish Draken, that is about the size of an F-16.

View attachment 673421

Read my post. I wasn’t talking about yhe similarities in appearance, but the similarities in timing.

 

[Q-nimbus]

I’ve taken a few hours to read and analyze the picture a bit more. A few observations: NGAD
I’ve taken a few hours to read and analyze the picture a bit more. A few observations:

• Joerg of DLR has rightfully pointed out that the taxiway centrelines line up very neatly with the taxilines in the tent. Considering the taxilines are at an angle/curvature, this would be difficult to realize if we are looking at a painted tent; in any case if this was an aircraft painted on top it would be much easier to just put the structure on a straight part of the taxiway to line up the centrelines of the taxiway going in and out of the tent. That is without taking into consideration that not every satellite is straight overhead but are viewing the base at an angle. Unless the satellite taking the images was straight overhead the taxiway lines going in and out of the tent wouldn’t match.
• The front part of the tent casts a large shadow so it’s likely it’s non transparant, while there isn’t a similar shadow at the rear of the tent. It appears the rear is open or transparant as well.
• while difficult to see, it seems the structural arches of the tent cast a shadow on the aircraft and the ground. It seems there is no cover, or it must be a transparent one. My interpretation is that it’s covered by a transparant tarpaulin to protect it from the elements, but they definitely want the aircraft to be seen. If it’s not covered, why bother with tentpoles at all?
• If they were busy building up the tent we would see cars and people on the image as well. They aren’t to be seen and as this image has been unchanged for multiple days it seems the way the tent was build was intentional and we’re not looking at a half finished tent.
• we are easily fooled, but the Russian and Chinese satellite image analysts are not. Their images have a very high resolution, and they have very advanced software to get everything out of this picture. They would know straight away whether this is a real aircraft or not. That begs the question: if it’s fake, why bother?

In my view the available evidence points to an aircraft or aircraft like structure in a transparant tent. It might be a mockup, or the real thing. We simply can’t tell. But there is something there, and ‘they’ want the world to see it.

Now, has anyone been to the lookout point at Area 51 recently?

 

[Hood]

Fake shadows are as old as camouflage itself.

Actually the tent looks quite shiny, like it was clear plastic sheeting so it could be a fake model underneath a plastic canopy. That seems more likely given the taxiway markings line up exactly (which would be difficult to do to fool a satellite unless you were 100% show of the viewing angle) and the ground colouring matches so well. I'm not sure a fake painted/printed CGI cover would be quite so consistent in these background features unless someone put a lot of effort into this tent.
It could be the real thing but who would be dumb enough to put a top secret prototype inside a plastic tent...

 

[timmymagic]

It could be the real thing but who would be dumb enough to put a top secret prototype inside a plastic tent...

And no-one in the right mind would procure a transparent one, particularly not at Area 51 where they'll want it opaque for surveillance, but also temperature control...sticking anything in a transparent tent there would boil it...

 

[Flyaway]

It seems a bit of a waste of time as a fake as I imagine most nations with sufficiently advanced satellite reconnaissance would see through it in five minutes.

 

[FighterJock]

It seems a bit of a waste of time as a fake as I imagine most nations with sufficiently advanced satellite reconnaissance would see through it in five minutes.

My thoughts too Flyaway. I would not think that it is a fake. Otherwise they have done a pretty good job of it.

 

[Foo Fighter]

Disinformation has been a large part of government and military strategy for a very long time and this will continue into the future. Why show something unlikely? To get the other folks spending money to counter the thing. It keeps us talking and entertained too.

 

[Manuducati]

Note to Northrop-Grumman: I'm waiting for the royalties from my F/A-XX project (see my avatar picture as well).

 

[TomS]

Yeah, looking again at how well the runway marking lines up, I now doubt that it's just a painted/printed image.

But leaving something real and sight-sensitive parked on the runway for 3-4 days, unconcealed? No, they would not do that.

It's either something already known that is just hard to recognize due to the resolution limits of the image, or it's a deception operation. If the later, it's not very convincing, because of how long it sat on the runway. I suppose it could be a deliberate "message sending" reveal, but if so, it's way too subtle to work, IMHO. And there isn't any accompanying messaging about a previously undisclosed capability with suitable stage-managed leaks off-the-record comments.

 

[Michel Van]

This look more like a F-16XL
Could be they pull 75-0749 from Storage at Edwards AFB and transfer it to Groom Lake ?

 

[Dilandu]

This look more like a F-16XL

Hm, a tail part isn't like F-16XL. The tail of whatisit on photo is protruding, and F-16XL have more recessed one.



Really, this mystery something on photo looks almost like Saab J-35 Draken:




May it be, that it's just an old Saab J-35, brought at some point of time for evaluation/aerodynamic research?

 

[litzj]

It seems... having winglet? not 100% sure due to low-res though

If winglet is attached, I will bet on hypersonic stuff

 

[dark sidius]

This look more like a F-16XL

Hm, a tail part isn't like F-16XL. The tail of whatisit on photo is protruding, and F-16XL have more recessed one.

View attachment 673438

Really, this mystery something on photo looks almost like Saab J-35 Draken:

View attachment 673440
View attachment 673439

May it be, that it's just an old Saab J-35, brought at some point of time for evaluation/aerodynamic research?

Do you think USAF build a massive hangar in South of Area 51 for a Saab J-35 ? you realy think it ????? And you think that teh Russian are unable to identify a 80 s fighter on a clear satellite picture ???

 

[sat_dxer]

Cobra maneuver prototype?

Cobra maneuver - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Dilandu]

Do you think USAF build a massive hangar in South of Area 51 for a Saab J-35 ?

I think, that old Saab J-35 may be put into hangar, if she was used in some experiments. Hangars are for storing planes, you know.

 

[Dilandu]

Cobra maneuver prototype?

By the way, Saab J-35 is one of the planes that COULD do the trick...

 

[southwestforests]

what's up with the big black blob in front of the structure surrounding it?

The Drive author expects this,

The structure itself is a modular/temporary aircraft shelter — similar to the one below — with its rear wall up but its top covering not installed.

 

[rooster]

See how large the shadow is in the front of the structure? A skeleton structure or translucent structure doesn't create shadows that big. Its either a fake or a picture on the top of an opaque structure. Science and optics don't lie. I don't even think the lines of the shadows look consistent. For that matter where are the other shadows from the skeleton structure? There aren't any and there damned well should be. It does however give people a nice reference for how large that hangar next to it is.... There's secrets there for sure but this is fakery

Why wouldn't it? Greenhouses cast dark shadows all the time.

It depends on what is inside that causes the shadow on the outside....

Also if you notice the shadow on the top or front of the structure does not match the shadow on the left........ The shadow should be uniform all the way around AND it is definitely not uniform as in your photo.

It also does not show shadows caused by the skeleton framing......

 

[XP67_Moonbat]

I can’t help but notice the simularities in timing between the sighting of the triangle overhead Amarillo in march 2014 and this satellite image and the once again rising tensions between Russia and Ukraine.

It don't look like a triangle, is more conventional shaped.
Real or not has a fuselage, a delta wing with some winglets (?) on the edges.

Frankly it resemble (more or less) a Swedish Draken, that is about the size of an F-16.

View attachment 673421

My

This look more like a F-16XL

Hm, a tail part isn't like F-16XL. The tail of whatisit on photo is protruding, and F-16XL have more recessed one.

View attachment 673438

Really, this mystery something on photo looks almost like Saab J-35 Draken:

View attachment 673440
View attachment 673439

May it be, that it's just an old Saab J-35, brought at some point of time for evaluation/aerodynamic research?

Do you think USAF build a massive hangar in South of Area 51 for a Saab J-35 ? you realy think it ????? And you think that teh Russian are unable to identify a 80 s fighter on a clear satellite picture ???

My money was on an Avro Vulcan. ;-)

 

[X-39]

Northrop ESAV? Kinda looks similar when compared side to side. It might be pareidolia caused by shadows. but i can almost see a perfecly aligned trailing edge, without taking into account the lighty colored section (ofc the aircraft, painted or not, is much smaller)

https://www.phoenix-int.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Phx2018UC_MDAO_AFRL_Kolonay.pdf

 

[BAROBA]

Hi all,
I think we need to keep in mind what we see here...
If this is a part of the largest possible image they found, then that plane is made up out of 13 x 14 pixels....
How small is 13x14 pixels? About the size of this smiley-face ...
( The forum makes a preview that is many times larger then the original picture, so please click on it)
I don't know about you guys, but if you try to blow up 13x14 pixels into something bigger, well "mistakes"* in the software and noise will be blown-up too. Suddenly a new row of pixels becomes a double delta, half a pixel becomes a wingtip that bends upwards...
I have enhanced the picture in Photoshop with a Neural network-plugin called Superzoom. The result was nowhere near what they got... Not really a surprise, because that kind of details can not be found in such a small image. Something with physics and math..
Anyone can download that photo and zoom in on it until something becomes visible.
I have attached it to this message, try to find any trace of those upwards pointed wingtips...
It could be either a drone or something painted on a low structure that is semi-transparent to light ( No dark shadows on the front, unlike the building. )
About those greenhouses... It is all about shadows and how they are made and photographed... Shadows are darker when there are most ShadowCasters and wider SC. A small pole will cast a thinner and lighter shadow then a wide plate of the same height. ( see picture of @skyblue) The picture of @skyblue also clearly demonstrates the effect that several planes of semi-transparent glass have on light. The glass of some greenhouses are coated to keep the light trapped in and to get an extra bounce of light ( and heat) in the greenhouse.
The roof is usually more transparent ( the light must enter the greenhouse) Clearly shown in the picture of @rooster).
The differences in shadows are created here by :
-The stray-light.Coming from bouncing around in the greenhouse, they light up the shadows of the frame.
- Subsurface shattering: The shadows have a strong green tint in them. The light enters the leaves and bounces around and then exists the leave in a random direction, but is colored green and then bounces somewhere on the floor and is reflected back to the camera, we see green in the shadows..
The darkness of the shadows on the left is also cause by the high numbers plants standing close together. Catching all the light. The frame is very thin and high, which combined with the stray light gives very faint shadows.

Also the way it is captured by the camera: It has to do with light sensitivity( aka the exposure of ISO-value) of the camera and that will influence the darkness of the shadows. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exposure_(photography) )
Also I suspect some editing on the picture that @rooster posted, to get the sky to be much better looking then it actually was.

* These mistakes can be baises ( if a Neural Network is trained on faces, it will see faces everywhere), misinterpretations ( If a NN did see a winglet on various planes, it is more likely to add a winglet, even it is is not there) Assumptions ( If those pixels have higher then usual contrast, it will interpret that as it is taught , it can become difference in height, an inlet, a cockpit, a stair, anything. But it can also be a shadow or even a sticker, we can't see it).

Just my two cents,

Rob

 

[quellish]

EXCLUSIVE: Mysterious Swedish Aerospace Company may be origin of Top Secret BrownStar 6th Gen Sighted At Area 51.



- If you compare the shadow at the north end (front) of the structure to the shadow of the large hangar to the south you will notice the structure shadow is much lighter. Maybe the covering is not opaque or there is much more light inside coming from the south end.

- The shadow at the north end suggests the framework of the structure has a rounded or nearly flat roof and flat vertical sides. The shadow appears to show that whatever is opaque or semi opaque and creating the shadow does not extend all the way to the top of the framework.

- There does not appear to be a door / front wall on the structure. There should be some of this visible, but there is not.

- At the north end of the structure there is something on the structure that is light colored and covers some of the top of the structure. It may be the fabric covering for the shelter, partially deployed.

- If the covering for the shelter is partically deployed the large shadow at the north end should not be so deep. The shadow at the north end is more consistent with a covering that extends for half the length of the structure or more.

- There is nothing to suggest a rear door / wall on the structure. If the structure is open/uncovered/transparent there should be a shadow visible inside the structure.

- There is a dark shape on the taxiway marking inside the north shadow, perhaps a vehicle.

- If the structure is open/uncovered it should be casting more shadows inside the structure than what we can see.

There is just not enough information present in the image to draw any conclusions or make a good hypothesis.

It would be helpful if we knew the time of day, angle, etc. that the photo was taken. If there were other days this was visible there should also be more images taken under different conditions. For some reason the author has chosen not to provide that information.

An enterprising individual could probably find what companies make similar temporary aircraft shelters and also find out if those companies have been under contract to the Department of Defense in the last 10 years. That individual could also find out where the temporary shelters were deployed, where any associated construction was done, etc.

The aircraft though certainly looks like a Draken. Many of the Drakens in the US are painted similar brown / green / OD colors. Drakens have been used for DACT and testing around Groom Like frequently over the last 20 years.

Which seems more plausible?

- A Saab Draken used in support of training is left out in the open, uncovered, for several days.

- A top secret aircraft is left out in the open, uncovered for several days.

And keep in mind thee is a nice big hangar not far away. I would think a secret aircraft might be dragged into that hangar to keep it out of sight. Of course I think a Draken would too if it was blocking something from using that taxiway.

 

[TomcatViP]

To those that think it has been printed on the roof, the print process on large surface involves plastified film that are applied on surface. The surface must be regular.
That type of shelter is built with supporting frames (ribs) and interlacing cover. Hence, if only the cover was filmed with the print, that is exactly what would be seen here, just as @TomS noticed.

 

[dark sidius]

Realy a Draken in super secret hangar ?, soon we will see P-51 on the ramp no realy message for Ukraine tensions.

 

[quellish]

Realy a Draken in super secret hangar ?, soon we will see P-51 on the ramp no realy message for Ukraine tensions.

Really.
The F-16s, UH-60s, and 757s on the ramp must be “sending a message” too.

 

[Fluff]

EXCLUSIVE: Mysterious Swedish Aerospace Company may be origin of Top Secret BrownStar 6th Gen Sighted At Area 51.

View attachment 673454

- If you compare the shadow at the north end (front) of the structure to the shadow of the large hangar to the south you will notice the structure shadow is much lighter. Maybe the covering is not opaque or there is much more light inside coming from the south end.

- The shadow at the north end suggests the framework of the structure has a rounded or nearly flat roof and flat vertical sides. The shadow appears to show that whatever is opaque or semi opaque and creating the shadow does not extend all the way to the top of the framework.

- There does not appear to be a door / front wall on the structure. There should be some of this visible, but there is not.

- At the north end of the structure there is something on the structure that is light colored and covers some of the top of the structure. It may be the fabric covering for the shelter, partially deployed.

- If the covering for the shelter is partically deployed the large shadow at the north end should not be so deep. The shadow at the north end is more consistent with a covering that extends for half the length of the structure or more.

- There is nothing to suggest a rear door / wall on the structure. If the structure is open/uncovered/transparent there should be a shadow visible inside the structure.

- There is a dark shape on the taxiway marking inside the north shadow, perhaps a vehicle.

- If the structure is open/uncovered it should be casting more shadows inside the structure than what we can see.

There is just not enough information present in the image to draw any conclusions or make a good hypothesis.

It would be helpful if we knew the time of day, angle, etc. that the photo was taken. If there were other days this was visible there should also be more images taken under different conditions. For some reason the author has chosen not to provide that information.

An enterprising individual could probably find what companies make similar temporary aircraft shelters and also find out if those companies have been under contract to the Department of Defense in the last 10 years. That individual could also find out where the temporary shelters were deployed, where any associated construction was done, etc.

The aircraft though certainly looks like a Draken. Many of the Drakens in the US are painted similar brown / green / OD colors. Drakens have been used for DACT and testing around Groom Like frequently over the last 20 years.

Which seems more plausible?

- A Saab Draken used in support of training is left out in the open, uncovered, for several days.

- A top secret aircraft is left out in the open, uncovered for several days.

And keep in mind thee is a nice big hangar not far away. I would think a secret aircraft might be dragged into that hangar to keep it out of sight. Of course I think a Draken would too if it was blocking something from using that taxiway.

perhaps its a test run, using literally a draken, because A they had one, and B its similar in shape/dimensions to what is coming.

A mobile cover, taking the real aircraft from the hangar, to the runway. Because that cover is very precisely lined up on the centreline of a curved taxiway.