Huh???!!!! WTF??

[Slowvehicle]

From the OP
stay tuned.

Ball's in your court, at this point. Although, I have to say that your claim of "doing this for a living" makes the pixel count anomalies over the Photshop-scaled "wings" a bit...well, questionable.

Those "engines" up front look more like rotatable nacelles...not main thrust and there does not appear to be any thrust from them.

One would expect "rotatable nacelles" to be closer to the CG, no? Unless you are trying to pinwheel the fuselage...

There is a scram jet design about that uses regular jet engines up to speed and then the scram kicks in .....it's got a weird kind of contrail as well.

Not a "contrail" in the first picture, but a rocket exhaust plume from the booster rocket (not "regular jet engines") used to get the X-43 up to speed so that its scramjet could fire.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_X-43

Hmmm - looking very similar

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a2/B-52B_with_X43.jpg

...other than the fact that the wings are close to the CG, and the rocket engine is internal...

Well, that, and the pixel-count consistency, and the lack of photoshop haloes...

Maybe NASA is moving forward with a more critical wing design and those front engines are just to get up to speed for the scram jet to fire ( the way that engine is strapped on above for testing )

Clearly the NASA project is a work in progress.

Or, maybe your friend is either pulling your leg, or trying to get away with something.

Maybe it's an Aurora.

 

[Kid Eager]

Aha! Found the original:

http://web.stagram.com/p/653767535491161817_410097182

Ball's in your court, at this point. Although, I have to say that your claim of "doing this for a living" makes the pixel count anomalies over the Photshop-scaled "wings" a bit...well, questionable.



One would expect "rotatable nacelles" to be closer to the CG, no? Unless you are trying to pinwheel the fuselage...



Not a "contrail" in the first picture, but a rocket exhaust plume from the booster rocket (not "regular jet engines") used to get the X-43 up to speed so that its scramjet could fire.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_X-43



...other than the fact that the wings are close to the CG, and the rocket engine is internal...

Well, that, and the pixel-count consistency, and the lack of photoshop haloes...



Or, maybe your friend is either pulling your leg, or trying to get away with something.

Maybe it's an Aurora.

I do believe it is a shopped version of the original photo I linked to in my post quoted above.

Interestingly, the ELA contrail anomaly lines up perfectly with the actual dual contrails in the source photo

 

[RussDill]

I do believe it is a shopped version of the original photo I linked to in my post quoted above.

Interestingly, the ELA contrail anomaly lines up perfectly with the actual dual contrails in the source photo

The photos appear to me to only show a vague similarity. Both are of a plane high up in the sky, other than that, no. The lighting on the fuselage is completely different, the angle of the planes are different, etc, etc.

 

[Mudcat]

This idea led to very quiet, very economical engines, but the airline industry didn't seem to be all that interested. I wonder why?

The unducted fan is very loud, it exceeds noise level restrictions. From what I understand there's someone experimenting with a quieter version, though.

 

[Manopolus]

Definitely Photoshop. You can see the shadows of the wings where they're supposed to be.

Sloppy work. I could fix that.

 

[Daylightstar]

... another forum ...

Could you post a link? Google image search from chrome doesn't find the image for me.

From the OP

It's not like I'm going to upload the originals now I realise they could be money in the bank for me. Whatever it was, it was not a fake, and since I've got them in jpg+RAW....it's provable.

stay tuned.
...

So, could you post that link please?

 

[Spindrift]

So, could you post that link please?

Come now. Don't you know who this works? It's Schodinger's evidence. The evidence is locked away where no one can see it, but they swear it exists.

 

[Farsight]

I've seen that before. Here's some other pictures of it.

 

[Olowkow]

Aha! Found the original:

http://web.stagram.com/p/653767535491161817_410097182

Link doesn't work for me.

ETA: I tried TinEye, using the Photobucket source photo, but it reports an error I haven't seen before.

Your image is too simple to create a unique fingerprint.

Suggestions:

• TinEye requires a basic level of visual detail to properly fingerprint your image. Try uploading a larger or uncropped version if possible, or another more detailed image.
• Some websites mask their images beneath a blank or transparent image layer. If TinEye did not search for the image you wanted, this may be the case. Try submitting the image from another source.

 

[edd]

I do believe it is a shopped version of the original photo I linked to in my post quoted above.

Interestingly, the ELA contrail anomaly lines up perfectly with the actual dual contrails in the source photo

That doesn't look at all like the source photo to me. Also I don't feel that ELA is terribly robust, although I do think the image that started this thread is manipulated.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Link doesn't work for me.

ETA: I tried TinEye, using the Photobucket source photo, but it reports an error I haven't seen before.

All google finds is this thread.

 

[Daylightstar]

All google finds is this thread.

Same for me also when I search for quoted texts provided by macdoc.

 

[dlorde]

It's probably an immature form of one of these:

Or perhaps a mature version of this:

 

[MRC_Hans]

Lot of pretzels to twist through for sure.

Variable nozzle for the rear outlet and rotatable nacelles up front and for sure fly by wire but really makes no sense ....still trying to get more info.

Obviously aircraft, since it makes a contrail and has wings. So it must make sense, aerodynamically. However, it doesn't, which means it doesn't exist.

It is a fake.

Hans

 

[HighRiser]

It's probably an immature form of one of these:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?pictureid=8702&albumid=977&dl=1397743951[/qimg]

Or perhaps a mature version of this:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?pictureid=8703&albumid=977&dl=1397744505[/qimg]

Those don't usually live long enough to fully mature, do they?

 

[Daylightstar]

Come now. Don't you know who this works? It's Schodinger's evidence. The evidence is locked away where no one can see it, but they swear it exists.

Sure, for some individuals, as evidenced regularly on these forums, claiming evidence where no such evidence exists appears quite common.
On the other (hypothetical) hand, perhaps macdoc feels insecure about his posting on that

... another forum ...

 

[Roger Ramjets]

The photos appear to me to only show a vague similarity. Both are of a plane high up in the sky, other than that, no. The lighting on the fuselage is completely different,

Here's another example with closer lighting. Note the bright spot caused by sunlight reflecting off the starboard wing root. The 'UFO' shows a similar spot, but without any explanation as to why it should be there...

He only altered it to bring out detail.

That's strange, because under magnification the image appears to have been smoothed, not sharpened.

All google finds is this thread.

Same here. macdoc says it was posted up on another forum, but until he provides a link we only have his word for it. One thing is for sure though - the image has definitely been shopped. The only question is:- how much?

 

[dasmiller]

Here's another example with closer lighting. Note the bright spot caused by sunlight reflecting off the starboard wing root. The 'UFO' shows a similar spot, but without any explanation as to why it should be there...

Well done.

 

[Slowvehicle]

Here's another example with closer lighting. Note the bright spot caused by sunlight reflecting off the starboard wing root. The 'UFO' shows a similar spot, but without any explanation as to why it should be there...

That's strange, because under magnification the image appears to have been smoothed, not sharpened.

Same here. macdoc says it was posted up on another forum, but until he provides a link we only have his word for it. One thing is for sure though - the image has definitely been shopped. The only question is:- how much?

Nice work!

 

[GT/CS]

Shouldn't this be moved to the giant dragonfly thread?!!!