Wednesday, November 30, 2011

ROSWELL “MEMORY METAL” FOUND ON OFFICIAL FILM OF B-2 STEALTH? By Anthony Bragalia


Copyright 2011, InterAmerica, Inc.

The Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit is an advanced military aircraft that has unique capabilities that are far-ranging. Introduced in 1997 (with an alleged first flight in 1989) there are just 22 of them in the world. They incorporate low observable stealth technology. Some have speculated that they may even utilize anti-gravity technologies or that they possess other exotic features that are kept from public view.

But it may not always be possible to keep such features from outside detection. One officially released film of the B-2 Bomber in flight that is very “revealing” may have somehow escaped the scrutiny of US Air Force censors. A recently-discovered segment of this video appears to show another of the B-2 Stealth’s capabilities: The ability to Morph.

This brief clip seems to demonstrate the craft’s “morph” of the metal skin of its outer hull. This would allow it to “intelligently” perform critical functions (and perhaps to “self-heal” if damaged by enemy action.)

WHERE THE FILM COMES FROM

The remarkable film shown below comes from a broadcast by the Military Channel. The Military Channel is a distinguished specialty cable station that is owned by the media corporation that also owns the Discovery Channel and Animal Planet (as well as the “How Stuff Works” video series.) Started in 1999, the Military Channel is known to maintain a cooperative relationship with historical societies and with the US Government in obtaining original footage that relates to the military, warfare and military history. The “legitimacy” of their programming and the authenticity of their broadcast information is without question.

Re-broadcast on YouTube, the footage is entitled “B-2 Spirit Stealth Bomber” and simply shows views of the Stealth on the ground and in flight from various angles for about 4 minutes. It is a “PR” film. But despite its garnering over 1,800,000 views, nobody appears to have made any mention in the “comments” section about the morphing metal hull.

THE FILM

Click here to see the video “MORPHING SKIN” OF A B-2 BOMBER IN FLIGHT

This film is 3:51 seconds in length. Viewing the entire film it becomes rather evident that it is a USAF-issued video.

At approximately the 2:40 second mark (and for a duration of about three seconds) one can clearly observe a “gape” or “opening” on the topside front of the craft that seems to “self-close” in a seamless and almost surreal way. If one looks very closely it appears as though the skin of the craft is “self-directed” and “intelligent” as if it were “remembering” its original shape, like Roswell’s memory metal or a Nitinol actuator!

Of course I am not taking a definitive stance on the true nature of this phenomenon as revealed on this video. It could well be that there is some sort of “perception bias” or that it is a “trick of the light.”

Thoughts from others are welcome on what they think about this enigmatic footage. And thanks are extended to Gilles Fernandez, Philippe from Lille, France and to Rich Reynolds for their keen observations and insight.

AB

27 comments:

  1. Preceding the sequence are scenes of the B-2 dropping bombs. The sequence in question shows the bomb bays closing. Yes, they do look seamless when closed, but we are only looking at a 240 pixel wide, low-quality, highly compressed video on YouTube. You can't form any conclusions of seamlessness or self-sealing, morphing metal from that. I'd bet at that resolution, car doors would look seamless as well.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think Tony's talking about the sequence right after where there are eye opening closures on the top side of each wing, certainly not bomb bays there. The 90% titanium SR-71 had fuel tanks that leaked badly when on the ground and morphed closed when the plane reached cruising speed due to heat expansion. It also topped at at 2000 mph+ where the B=2 is subsonic.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hi Frank/David-

    Yes, I am referring to the sequence beginning at about 2:39-2:40 and continuing for 2 or 3 seconds.

    I am not referring to the the sequence 2:34-2:37 which appears to be winglets or wing doors closing.

    The sequence I am referring to is at the topside and to the upper right nearer the cockpit. Something strange is clearly going on.

    Anthony Bragalia

    ReplyDelete
  4. Something closes off and it's over the air inlet for the jet engine . . .

    http://danieldeubank.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/b-2_spirit_befeore_its_reciving_fuel.jpg

    What specific purpose it serves I don't know, but I have to assume it's related to that. I would say it likely isn't morphing and is just some sort of hatch sliding shut and the plane is just so damn tight it looks like magic.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Looking a little closer at the beginning of the video, you can see those hatches open as a B-2 taxis and takes off. A friend I asked isn't positive but thinks it might serve a couple different possible purposes, maybe something of a spoiler hatch or a vent for an auxiliary power unit. But on a closer look, seems to be a practical hatch of some sort.

    ReplyDelete
  6. OK, the closing hatches are topside, not bomb bays. But it doesn't matter. The video is of such low resolution that you aren't going to be able to see the seams, and that is the subject matter. It's not what is that hatch on top doing.

    Length of the B-2 bomber from tip to pointy trailing wing is about 70 feet. That means in a 240 pixel-wide video, which spans front to back in the sequence in question, each pixel is 3 to 4 inches. Even if the seam was an inch wide you won't see it. More likely the seam is something like 1/8" to 1/4", just totally invisible in such a lo-res video, especially throwing in compression which will blur the picture even further.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Greetings,
    First, thank you so much for your thanks -sic- at the end of the article.
    Just in order to precise that in any time I have NOT been in favor of "morphing". It is for my humble opinion an "illusion" due to the bad video resolution, the image compression and big "granularity" then + a "My side bias/confirmation bias".
    The sequence on top of the engine pods are the "retraction" of the auxiliary air intakes which are needed to get extra air flow into the engines at low speeds/taking off/landing. You have too the shadow of one the "door" of one the intake which is hardly visible at first, because of its orientation to the light. When it closes, the disparition of the shadow increases imho the morphing illusion, but it is trivial and normal for an shadow. All of it is due to the low quality, compression and resolution in my point of view.
    Regards,
    Gilles Fernandez

    ReplyDelete
  8. I agree with Frank and Gilles F..unfortunately this evidence such that it is does not qualify as hard evidence. As far as anti gravity devices, that is supercilious.Ion injection as a ignition booster is a suspect as far as exotic technology..but that is only a probability.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Tony Bragalia here...I am in agreement that the resolution of the film is unfortunately not ideal.

    But -to my eyes- one can still very easily make out (at 2:40) a very large opening or "space" that is "filled in" or almost "swallowed up" from every angle along the gap's perimeter. The effect is not one of a "hatch" opening or closing (as seen a few seconds before in the film) but something very "surreal."

    The "moving metal" of the B-2's skin is not "sliding" or "unrolling" - rather, it appears as though it is a "closure" that is occurring from all sides. It almost appears to me like a CGI effect (though it is not.) The "metal movement" seems almost "living." It has the feeling of being "animated" without being animation.

    This almost phantasmagorical effect is seen especially at the very,very end of the "closure" of the space, closest to the cockpit (on the 'wing bump'- and just before the camera switches abruptly to another view of the B-2 in flight.)

    Though Gilles now believes in a hatch/illusion explanation- that was not his original thought on this. At first he was in agreement that the "effect" was very unusual. Then, after further emails to me with other ideas of what it could be- and after further viewings- he wrote back that he now felt the answer to be prosaic and that the effect is enhanced by "perception bias."

    Gilles could be right. I am not "wed" to the video in any way. My interest is simply in obtaining others' thoughts on this. I have learned from Gilles that we can have cordial discourse yet still come to different conclusions. And we can agree on some things- the original video (hopefully with greater clarity) should be tracked down. I have a call into the Military Channel to see if one can be obtained.

    Anthony Bragalia

    ReplyDelete
  10. Re,
    Tony, there is a bad understanding probably due to my english.
    I have never commented in favor on a morphing hypothesis. I have just stated that of course I saw the effect (bluffing illusion).
    My first PM, at your question (when you have only the short french sequence) : Do you see this too?
    I replied:
    "Yes, I "see" it too at 0.02 second and at 12s to 15s and I'm abused too (at first readings !). But I think it it cause the bad "grain" or the bad definition of the film, then an "illusion". Dunno if I'm clear enough?"

    To the second question :
    2) Do you believe it to be a CGI (computer generated image) effect?
    I replied :
    "No. I dont think it is a fake or a CGI film. It is probably a copy of a copy etc, then a bad definition film giving some "illusions" if you are (no offense intended) to much focuzed on, culturaly prepared/biased to see what you want to see (memory alloys retro-analyzed from an ET crash and used in USAF relative best aircraft) . A sort of "confirmation bias/ myside bias" here due to a cultural ambiance. Sorry, I'm frank with you and no one desire to offense or to provokate you. Really.
    "

    After, it seems it was the top of the wing sequence which was the more interresting. So, I asked a friend for help and he fastly analyzed the sequence and proposed there was a shadow of one the air intake "door/trap" due to the light condition (in green is the shadow after in the following JPG) :
    http://i44.servimg.com/u/f44/13/64/05/05/open_h10.jpg
    versus
    http://i44.servimg.com/u/f44/13/64/05/05/open10.jpg
    When the door is closing, the shadow diseapear and it participated to give the morphing impression (an illusion), due one more time to the general bad resolution.

    In essence, of course I agreed the 2 sequences were "bluffing" and I "saw" the illusion too, but that's all.
    Well, I hope it would be maybe possible to find an original of the clip by the Military Channel, and to confirm or not all of that. But again, just an illusion for me.

    Best Regards,

    Gilles Fernandez

    ReplyDelete
  11. The skin is rubbery and malleable, made of thermoplastics and composites transparent to radar.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Regardless of what this particular video does or doesn't show, there is no question the concept of morphing aircraft has attracted a lot of high-brow academic attention over the years . . .

    http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=NASA+morphing+aircraft&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart

    ReplyDelete
  13. Oh and here's a good photo of that hatch opened on the B-2.

    http://www.richard-seaman.com/Aircraft/AirShows/Edwards2005/B2/B2TakingOff9oClock2.jpg

    ReplyDelete
  14. Here's a higher quality video that shows the same openings in flight at 2:25: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEfv65_luP4

    ReplyDelete
  15. Based on the various links provided, the mystery hatch is an auxiliary air intake for the engines, used at low speed, then closed. Higher resolution pictures clearly show the various hatches and control services, usually distinguished by contrasting colors (not so much by seams, which would require even higher resolution to clearly make out). The "melting" or "morphing" mystery hatch was nothing but an illusion created by a very low-resolution YouTube video.

    ReplyDelete
  16. "Of course I am not taking a definitive stance on the true nature of this phenomenon as revealed on this video. It could well be that there is some sort of “perception bias” or that it is a “trick of the light.”"

    Why the unnecessary disclaimer? :)

    Any one who would care to spend some time and look closely enough can clearly SEE that the top "square" opening closes diagnally from the top left corner down. It IS morphing.

    Never expected to see something so exotic!

    The question is - is the technology concept really from roswell (or some other crashed ufo) or nanotech?

    Thanks for pointing that out. I came across your website by way of Nexus magazine.

    ReplyDelete
  17. hi there, iam a huge ufo believer but i know the roswell case never happened because the evidence never is the same. I have heard almost every version or story if you like and the eyewitnesses are the worst thing about that case because every time they speak they debunk there lies. And to be honest the people who say they witnessed something are really trying to genarate a income from in whatever way they can from this story. thanks for your time check out my ufo blog

    ReplyDelete
  18. While I do not think this video in any way demonstrates "morphing metal" apertures of either the upper supplementary air intakes (for taking off at slower speeds than normal cruise) or the lower landing gear doors, and essentially agree with David Rudiak's comments here about the illusion being based on the relatively poor resolution of the video concerned, and have privately expressed this conclusion to Tony, I thought it might also be helpful to better demonstrate this effect via a better quality, somewhat higher resolution video released recently by Northrup Grumman of the first (Sept. 30, 2011) cruise flight of the X-47B UCAS unmanned drone:

    See: http://tinyurl.com/78zomq7

    In this video, you can more clearly see how the lower aperture doors close so tightly (primarily due to the extremely close fit required to maintain stealth characteristics) that they, too, appear to merge so perfectly with the overall body shape as to "disappear," but again, this, IMHO, is simply a question of the combination of the video resolution quality, the matching RAM paint overall, and the very tight fit such "stealthed" apertures must be manufactured to in order to reduce or eliminate potential radar returns from gaps, aircraft planform, or any other extruding surfaces which would otherwise potentially trigger a radar reflection and aircraft detection by hostile forces.

    Although Tony has said he is not wed to the idea that the initial video linked here demonstrates "morphing," I think this most recent video of the same effect should help put this question to rest.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Hi Steve-

    Thanks much for this link and your analysis.

    The linked video does show how the B-2 footage "morph" could indeed be merely an "effect" created by low resolution. The drone video you provide reveals the vehicle to possess a remarkably seamless "fit" - that is reminiscent of the B-2 "effect."

    But...it is (to my eyes at least) clearly still a hatch that is opening and then closing.

    In the B-2 footage, it is not so much an "open and close" hatch-like movement as shown in this drone video- but rather an unusual "sliding effect" that emits from the perimeter of the open spaces to their center.

    Unfortunately the Military Channel has yet to locate the original footage of the B-2 (which would hopefully be clearer and would clear this whole thing up.)

    Anthony Bragalia

    ReplyDelete
  20. @james glen clark

    The Roswell case "must" have happened. I can say that because certain aspects of it match up with what I've read and discovered in different places. And I don't even live anywhere near the US.

    For example, the Air Force Colonel who supplies info to Anthony Sanchez in his book UFO Highway, states that a high powered radar had accidentally brought down the roswell crafts not 1 but 2.

    Project Serpo also claims that 2 crafts had crashed instead of 1. This matched up with testimonies from an old documentary I saw many many years ago.

    Preston Nichols tells the same story of SAGE RADAR that brought down crafts at Roswell, in his Montauk interviews.

    Just 3 sources that have no connection to each other whatsoever but have some similarities = some thing IS really true.

    Just 1 eg but said in a very short cut manner.

    One needs to understand that for a topic like UFOs you have to filter just about anyones claims but see the credible ones. You have to figure that out.

    So research don't just make your mind up.

    As Stanton Friedman said - "Don't bother me with the facts, my mind is already made up"

    Don't do that..

    hactic

    ReplyDelete
  21. @hactic:

    Nor should you.

    If you knew the byzantine and labyrinthine history of the Montauk tales of Preston Nichols, Al Bielek, Peter Moon, and others, and the quite fraudulent sources of the Serpo tales, such as one very notorious hoaxster, former USAF Sgt. Richard C. Doty (who also collaborated with William Moore and later others in creating and advancing the MJ-12 hoax and fraud), you might begin to gain sufficient insight into the facts to realize the sources you cite are themselves both fraudulent in their statements, backgrounds, and stories, and should not be believed any further than you could throw a dwarf star, which you can't, due to the immense weight (of prior dishonesty and fabrication these very sources have promulgated and promoted in the example of the persons you cite). And I am really not kidding.

    I wouldn't trust their honesty or veracity even a nano of a micron, personally. Nor should you. Do some online research to see what I mean, like over at the Reality Uncovered website and many other places on the net.

    Hopefully, if you do so, you'll see just how utterly untrustworthy and completely fraudulent those sources of UFO data really and truly are.

    They are in the UFO Hall of Shame, sub-basement C, shelf X7, back there in the darkling corner, oozing the fetid slime of amateurish disinfo and deceit. To say the least. IMHO. YMMV. 8^}

    P.S. -- [BTW, is your "hactic" pseud or "handle" in any way connected to the former Dutch hacker 'zine and collective originally co-headed by Rop Gonggrijp? He is an acquaintance of mine, now facing legal maneuvers by the DOJ ref. his twitter account, etc. and in regard to the Wikileaks / Manning / Assange kerfuffle. I just thought it oddly interesting to see someone using that particular pseud, is all.] / sgs

    ReplyDelete
  22. @steve sawyer

    Hi, I'll check that.

    Never thought anyone would notice, the pseud is from the Dutch hacker group "HACKTIC". It's memorabilia from many many years back.

    ReplyDelete
  23. @steve

    Forgot to say.

    As for MJ-12. It can't be a fraud. Have you seen SOM1-01? Now why would some one go to those lengths to forge/print it?

    Don't think so.

    ReplyDelete
  24. @hactic:

    Part 1 of 2:

    I've known Rop G. and Billsf of the original 'HACTIC' techno-anarchist hacker collective and 'zine for over 20 years, being a former phone phreak and hacker myself, so I thought it was kind of funny someone would have adopted "hactic" as a handle. Amusing coincidence, eh?

    Anyway, to address your comments on MJ-12 and particularly the SOM 1-01 (Special Operating Manual)-- that publication, unfortunately, is also a known hoax, and you don't have to take my word for it. Extensive research into the SOM has been conducted over the past 15 years, as noted/detailed below.

    While it may be an impressive piece of work, it is still an elaborate fraud. There are over 50 historic, continuity, and factual errors in the SOM 1-01 manual that establish quite well that it's a fairly sophisticated fake, but once you drill down into the details, it becomes quite apparent it is a fabrication, even if it may seem initially somewhat authentic.**

    Just for your edification, I think you should check out the link below, and it's references to the origins of the MJ-12 mythos (and thus, to just how and why the SOM 1-01 is also a related, later hoax):

    http://tinyurl.com/dxo8h64

    This link goes to a 2007 MUFON Symposium paper published by MUFON and written by Barry Greenwood [famed for the book "Clear Intent," now titled "The UFO Cover-Up," and co-authored with Larry Fawcett, and Barry is also the primary author & publisher of both the "Just Cause" and "UFO Historical Review" newsletters you can review at: http:// www.greenwoodufoarchive.com/], and Brad Sparks [see his article on the 1957 RB-47 UFO incident in Clark's "UFO Encyclopedia," vol. II--it's the best analysis extant] for the most through and detailed expose of MJ-12 (and in indirect reference to SOM 1-01), available.

    This paper, in .pdf format, is 70+ pp. in length, and incredibly detailed in it's expose of MJ-12 is devastatingly thorough.

    For further documentation, if needed, that MJ-12 (and specifically the SOM 1-01 manual) is a hoax,

    See: http://tinyurl.com/dx8jh5a and
    http://www.greenwoodufoarchive.com/

    [click on "publications" tab, see all the "Just Cause" newsletters in the "new series" sub-section, and "UHR #3", all on MJ-12, etc.]

    http://bit.ly/iykVsK

    http://www.cufos.org/ros5.html

    http://tinyurl.com/d9nh8jf

    http://tinyurl.com/c97grmb

    **There is some suspicion that the SOM 1-01 manual may have been created by USAF OSI elements as a kind of counter-intelligence [CI] ploy, to entice inquiries by Soviet agents, or others, about Roswell, etc., with the intent that such inquiries might thus surface hostile foreign agents, but it's more likely a publication created by William Moore and/or Richard C. Doty, et al.

    If all of the above is still not convincing to you, I don't know what else to say than to be very careful what you believe, as it just might not be true or factual. As in the case of MJ-12 and the SOM, IMHO. Facts, not belief, are most important in the UFO field. I hope all of the above info links help elucidate and illuminate the issues involved--check them out and then get back to me with your opinion.

    Caveat Emptor, indeed. 8^}

    ReplyDelete
  25. Part 2 of 2:

    Postscript:

    OTOH, do I think there may have been or still is a kind of US government "secret UFO 'control group'"?

    Yes, I do suspect that may be the case, only it's not "MJ-12," and my speculation is based only on circumstantial evidence, not proof or hardcore factual documentation or data.

    See Tony's article on Alfred O'Donnell of EG&G here, and consider just who and why anyone would have presented such an arguably bizarre scenario to O'Donnell in the early 1950's (as outlined by Annie Jacobsen in her book "Area 51".

    The scenario itself, noted in Jacobsen's book, of a Stalin/Mengele faked UFO with either surgically or genetically altered children portrayed as "aliens" or made to appear so, is untrue on its face, but if fabricated by USG military/intell elements to create such an impression on O'Donnell, and others, who may have been intentionally mislead to believe it, you have to ask who and why such a hoax might have been created in the first place, so early, just to persuade the five EG&G "special group" of engineers and scientists to either think or believe what they may have been told, unless O'Donnell may have made the entire story up out of whole cloth.

    This is still a very ambiguous and gray area of controversy, but does deserve further investigation, if possible at this late date, and considering O'Donnell refuses to discuss the scenario he says he was confronted with, at least with UFO researchers.

    Whether it was done, if in fact, for CI purposes, to test civilian and military employees' security trustworthiness by these means before introducing them to genuine "black projects," to establish a disinfo ploy about UFOs generally, or for other reasons is unknown, but it is highly suggestive, at least, of operational activities to control the interpretation and credibility of the UFO phenomenon in an essentially deceptive and intentionally misleading manner, which is the essence of CI and related psychological information operations, or generically, psyops.

    There have also been some fragmentary, old references to a "control group," once referred to as the "unholy 13," and other names, but real evidence or documentation of such a UFO info suppression and supervisory group or agency element is, for now, still only speculation and unresolved, unfortunately.

    So, I do not dismiss the possibility of some similar group operating within elements of the USG military and intelligence agencies, it's just that there is not sufficient evidence or proof of such an actual group to say one way or the other. It is, like many things in UFOlogy, a true unknown.

    Oddly, it's also possible that "MJ-12" may in part have been a "double" USAF/OSI counter-intelligence ploy, by overtly suggesting such a group in a way and that would become discredited over time as it was investigated thoroughly, and thus misdirect or divert researchers away from the idea of any such actual "UFO 'control group'" being operational.

    Neat trick, if true, eh?

    ReplyDelete
  26. Post postscript conclusion:

    As CIA CI chief James Jesus Angleton once said in regard to CI issues ref. the Soviets, we in UFO research are dealing with "a wilderness of mirrors," meaning that "the confusion of the world of intelligence and espionage...
    consists of the myriad stratagems, deceptions and all the other devices of disinformation" that might be brought to bear on the national security problem of just whether UFOs constitute enough of an issue as to make it one that must be covered-up and denied for maintaining the continuity of authority of government institutions, as just one reason for any such deceptive ploys or disinformation that might be being employed.

    See: http://tinyurl.com/c979e6f and
    http://tinyurl.com/39gfwp and
    http://tinyurl.com/d75kskb

    Or, as Winston Churchill once said about Russia, the UFO phenomenon is "...a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma: but perhaps there is a key."

    The key is what all serious, objective UFO investigation and research seeks, and perhaps, someday, we may find it. I wouldn't hold my breath over it, however--it is an indefinite quest for the truth. Good luck in your own quest for same... 8^}

    ReplyDelete
  27. Hi SS, thanks for all links and details. Yes what a synchronicity!

    I did check all links. Read through most of them and skimmed through mufon.

    I have to say that I still don't think/believe that MJ-12 is a hoax. And I'm not ignorant. :)

    What about the many docs at the majestic documents website?

    And what about when Stanton Friedman found a MJ-12 memo in National Archives.

    Now that means something, doesn't it?

    The question that I usually ask my self when there's a great bit of detail for instance in say, SOM, is this - why would someone go that far to hoax something? What is the motive?

    Some have such details that hoaxing would become so time consuming and costly.

    MJ-12 may well be defunct/re-structured/under some other name or even be absorbed by some other organization.

    As for MUFON/CUFON, I really wouldn't count on them. They cannot be trusted. Why? To me they seem to mechanized, too well organized and may well be control by some other org.

    Just is the case for CSICOP.

    There are so much rubbish on the net but then there are certain things (very few) that actually make you wonder and leave you at just that.

    UFOlogy no doubt has become an extremely complex topic.

    May be SERPO is a hoax, it being too far fetched so I could be wrong.

    But for Roswell and MJ, there's far too much that just doesn't go away.

    The key to me is background research of subtle details about someone/some event etc. But that's not possible via the net. It has to be done where all this events took place.

    Another problem is that there's probably no modern data supporting UFO phenomena. Most is so old that just about every trace of it by know is wiped out.

    Some thing definitely must exist within c-i-a.

    ReplyDelete