Ahhhhh but of course :oops: Can't believe I fell for that one.

It's difficult to wager how big it is. The scale on google maps, I presume, is for sea level. Unless the plane is flying at 0 feet, then it's closer to the camera than what the scale measures, and is shorter (did I get that right?) than 100ft.

You guys should look in the Groom lake area. If you zoom to far in most of the Test Range, it's restricted, I wonder why :hmm:
:rotfl:

Just so you know, I "accidentally" went to that area when I was looking for UFO's and proof of Aliens. I know Area51 is not real BUT THEM DARN ALIENS ARE I tell ya.:yep:
:rotfl:

By the way, If anyone gets the chance to look at Las Vegas, can someone please tell me where the stratosphere tower is? I see the hotel. I even see the shadow of the tower, but the tower is gone I tell you, it's just gone :o

Ok if those dark things are wings, then why is there only one vertical stabilizer (elevator)?

Lookie, lookie:

http://i175.photobucket.com/albums/w...Wnut/plane.jpg

Where oh where did the left stabilizer go? I know a plane can't fly with it. Also, not many, if any, airlines/aircraft have the wings painted black while the rest of the plane is white.

ASWNut .. ok .. think what you want. But that's 100% plane for me. As for the right stabilizer, the photo is really awful and even wings are hard to see. I guess the stabilizer vanished because of JPG compression.

As for size, sure .. size of the object depends on the distance from camera, and in very simple way .. half distance, double size. If this was airplane photo, it could have be even smaller object. How much smaller ? Is this satellite or airplane photo ?

Even high layer of clouds is visible. The object leaves visible trail which is not smoke but condensed steam. Smoke would start right behind the engine. Jet engines leaves steam trails only at high altitudes .. lets say more than 5000m (15000ft).

All aerial and satellite photomaps are made by series of pictures, each picture is taken in slightly different time as the airplane or satellite moves. Each picture captures one CONE of the space. While sea-level terrain is continuous, altitudes closer to the camera are not continuous. We see here something flying with pretty long trail .. and the trail is all there, not splitted. Which mean whole trail was taken as a part of one snapshot.

Max angle of view of these cameras is less than 90 degrees. With 90 degrees camera view the photo-taking airplane would have to be about 7000ft higher that this object. This is absolute minimum, when the object with the trail would be right at the edges of the image. Lets say the photo-airplane would fly at least 22000 ft. Hm .. quite possible.

Then there are perspective changes. For aircraft photography, only objects at the center of the sub-image are displayed from top. Objects at border are displayed slightly from side, depending on camera angle of view. This perspective changes non-continuously at the edges of individual sub-images. You can for example see part of building from left .. and some other part of the same building from right.
Nothing like this can be seen in nearby city. All buildings are straight from top. Which looks like narrow-angle camera and larger distance .. which would be used on satellite.

Anyway .. because of the long trail .. if this was taken from aircraft .. and if the object moves at the bottom of trail-forming altitude. Then the photo-aircraft was a lot higher .. about 3/2 of the altitude, but let's expect even more. Than the object would have 33ft at minimum. Still too much, isn't it ?
If this is satellite image, the size can vary less than 10% even for aircrafts.

Also .. do such missiles fly in altitudes high enough to form trails ?

But as I said .. I clearly see an airplane, you can even see the dark glass at the front with little fantasy.

Definetly an aircraft.Probably an md80.Probably one from AA as their aircraft are in metal finish.Note area around wing box is painted and so is horizontal stabilizer aft of the leading edge.
http://www.mypage.bluewin.ch/memerz/...ics/aa_s80.jpg

Well, since the picture is in black and white, the color of the wings can only be guessed for. The fuselage is obviously white or chromish metal finish, but the stabilizers and main wings are probably painted in a clear blue color, judging from the hue. But, yes, the image quality is crap, so seeing individual details are hard, such as sun-shadowed stabilizers, markings, individual engines.

And I stand corrected, it looks a lot more like an MD80 than a DC9 :oops:

We look for smaller aircraft (100 ft and less). It has 2 engines in back (trails are too close together and aircrafts with engines under wings have wings more in front).

I guess it can be even Learjet or something like that.

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=e...m=1&iwloc=addr

The fuselage is a bit too long and thin to be a learjet, imo...but with some image distortion from the compression and wierd angle/distance, it might be true.

Yeah .. not exactly Learjet .. but something of that size.

It is not a Lear the wing shape is entirely wrong.Look at this for the md-80 series:
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/jetliner/md80/

and here is the lear:http://www.militaryfactory.com/bluep...ac/learjet.gif

I guess I just don't see the similarity:

http://roger.questions.cz/other/plane.jpg To this: http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=e...m=1&iwloc=addr


Anyway, didn't Boeing rename the DC-9/MD-80 series to the 717?


P.S. Nice pic Linton.

There is similarity in size and wing placement.
SLAM is 15 feets long. Minimum size of the object is 30ft, but I guess it is satelite image which makes it close to 100ft. There is no winged missile that large.
There is also the problem of double trail and the fact that there is a trail at all.

I've never seen a paint sceme like that, though. Anyone know what it is? Dosen't look like AA because the fuselage is white while the wings are black.:hmm:

Lol .. there is pretty much the same debate here:

http://www.digg.com/general_sciences...ying_over_Utah

Lots of pictures.

Here is my favourite post (last in the debate):

That's exactly the size and even the paint scheme looks just right.

Edit: even some more pictures here:

http://www.airliners.net/search/phot...nct_entry=true

It could be a crj-900.The wing shape is very similar to the md80 family.I went for AA as natural metal often looks black in pictures.Hereis a crj website:http://www.vectorsite.net/avcrj.html