What is Digg?119 Comments
- CLIFFosakaJAPAN, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Why are some people razzing me on my use of the word "Gorgeous"? I wasn't describing the plane as being Gorgeous, but instead, I was refering to the Large Format and sharpness of the photos; because many sites that show the F-117 are dinky low quality pictures; anyone with a grasp of Elementary Grammar would have understood what the reference was to the word "Gorgeous"....
- MaxxDamage, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"How many people can say they touched a stealth fighter?"
I can say I have touched one, crawled under one, climbed on top of one, and checked out the cockpit of one. But I was an F-16 mechanic for 20 years. Those pictures aren't fake that is the size of the aircraft, it is designated as a fighter. - EmileVictor, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Holy christ it's small. I was suprised.
- crackez, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Once when I was in Dayton, Ohio I saw one at the Air Force Museum near there and it was an after hours party at the museum. It was roped off, but me and a friend walked up and touched the wing. This was around 1998, so no guards. The skin was weird, it felt like tar paper. It was really neat. How many people can say they touched a stealth fighter?
- pimpsallad, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2The F-117 cost $45 million to make, not 2 billion
- tstaut, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"wow, real waste of tax payers money"
Something that adds protection for the people who defend our country is a waste of money? How about bulletproof vests on cops -- is that a waste of money too? - XStatic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1From 2002 but nice photos, check out the rest of the guys site, he has good stuff.
Check out this set of photos of a botched Italian Air Force G222 transport plane landing from the same 2002 Air show...
http://www.richard-seaman.com/Aircraft/AirShows/Riat2002/G222/Accident/index.html - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1FWIW, with all this talk about the B2 costing $2b a piece, I'd like to point out that NG actually sells 2 different models of the B2 bomber. The ones capabable of carrying a nuclear payload do cost $2.2b a piece, but they also sell us a model that is not rated for nuclear payloads that costs quite a bit less. So says one of my Northrop Grumman account reps at least...
- br0ken1128, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Once when I was in Dayton, Ohio I saw one at the Air Force Museum near there and it was an after hours party at the museum. It was roped off, but me and a friend walked up and touched the wing. This was around 1998, so no guards. The skin was weird, it felt like tar paper. It was really neat. How many people can say they touched a stealth fighter?"
I can say it .. considering I live LITERALLY right accross the street from the AFB museum in Dayton, OH :) I've touched the thing quite a few times..
I used to hang out there almost every day because I didn't have anything better to do, me and my friends would play hide-n-seek in the massive complex, you're never too old to play that game in a place like that.. it's huge ..
The stealth exhibit is back in the newer portion of the museum, it's roped off sure, but there's never any guards around the place, it's very easy to walk past the ropes at nearly every exhibit in the place.. lots of cool stuff there, I recommend anyone in the dayton area should check it out, even if you're not into aviation .. imax is pretty darn cool .. - superrice, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Nice pictures. I bet the Air Force is monitoring you now...LOL
- ZardozZ, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1These are great photos.... thanks. I'd rather not fine point the fone, just admire the technology and the design. Seeing the detail of the pilot in the cockpit was great. Wonder what camera was used and settings... I would expect a high end Nikon...
- RomeyRome, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It's gonna get wasted either way...I'd rather have it wasted on som' cool.
- kinderstod, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@CaptSnuffy
"Good to know our money goes toward such moral causes.
/gag"
HAHA Hilarious, especially seeing how you made a quip in another digg article about how you steal software. You're the real picture of ***** morality eh? - plefno, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1jodamiller said:
"Chances are that one who uses "gorgeous" to describe a jet fighter might be in need of a girlfriend."
Cars can be considered gorgeous. Why not planes? I don't know if I'd call the F-117 gorgeous, but's a sweet bird anyway. - AJRiddle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The stealth bomber is much better (and we actually use it).
- SilentBobSC, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Yeah, unsure of *why* it would be shopped, but something is definitely up with those photos.
SB - NptPrchr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Of course the Stealth Bomber is "much better," because it's way newer! The F-117 dates back to the Carter administration. It was very useful in its day -- Gulf War I, for example. "Stealth" technology is constantly being refined, improved upon, etc.
Deriding it for being less effective than a newer "stealth" plane is like blaming Dick Clark for not being as spry as Ryan Seacrest. - SilentBobSC, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1That is peculiar, upon further inspection of the photos, particularly the one that diggimon pointed out: http://www.richard-seaman.com/Aircraft/AirShows/Riat2002/F117/F117UnderGuard.jpg that looks 100% shopped. I don't know WHY it would be shopped, perhaps a proof-of-concept of a mash-up or maybe the guy went nuts with the retouching and oversharpened. However, anyone who has spent any amount of time with PS will tell you:
*the line where the guards are standing definitely is dodgy
*the text on the sign in the foreground looks like it's been blanked and replaced
*the focus is way too sharp on all items, foreground, subject, and everything in between
*the camo vehicle to the right looks choppy at best
*the checkerboard pattern on the vehicle behind that vehicle looks like it was drawn pixel-for-pixel
*text on the landing gear - when did the military start using Arial instead of stencil-spray?
Like I said, I don't know *why* it would be shopped, but that photo has definitely been altered at least a little. There's no doubt it's a real photo of a F117, but the entire photo is questionable. I have yet to look close at the rest of the series, but I do recall thinking that something was a little odd.
- A thought, could this perhaps be a 'shopped set of images of someone's R/C model? Altered to give it realistic photo-effects and legit background?
How likely is it that "just some guy" who just posted his pics could be able to handle the DIGG effect w/o getting his site crashed after being promoted to the front page?
Not trying to start a flame war, just curious what you all think of this...
SB - telegraham, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1117 = little bomber.
B-2 = big bomber.
Both are good birds. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I have a F117 photo that I can assure isn't fake, because I and some friends took it in an Air Show in Aviano (Italy), about 10 years ago:
Here it's (just scanned it): http://mark0.net/var/F117.jpg
--
Online TrID file identifier - http://mark0.net/onlinetrid.aspx - leehord, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1For all those stating that these pics are fake. They are not I was there at Fairford in 2002 when this flew at the show. It was by far the best display of the day.
- freebirdpat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1>You realize you could feed a small country in Africa for a couple years for the cost of one plane. . .
Why don't they feed themselves? Why do we need to feed them? If anything Europe should feed them since Europe's colonization of Africa caused most of the problems they have there today. - diggimon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1At last! thanks silentbobsc, I really thought I was going crazy or something. It doesn't make sense, people on here where actually at that show so there would be no need to fake the pics if he was at that show too.
All too wierd for me. - monolith, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Uh yea CaptSnuffy. Cause, you know, those immoral bullets used to defeat Nazi Germany in WWII were such a fraking waste....
- Zeusandhera, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It actually reminds me of Star Fox for the SNES, just large Polygons...
- boozedrinker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I am in the Air Force, at an fighter base, we house F-16's. I am a POL troop - meaning I gas the jets up after arrival and also provide LOX for the pilots to breath as well as LIN (liquid nitrogen). This was for a long time my favorite in the Air Force inventory, but I have came to like the B-2 Spirit more. But, when we make the transition from F-16's to F-22a's, I know that the raptor is gonna be my new favorite. You people who said these were photoshopped are idiots, by the way.
- santiago1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1 Eh, I'll still take an A-10 over this anyday! Nothing beats a Warthog!
- diggimon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0http://www.richard-seaman.com/Aircraft/AirShows/Riat2002/F117/F117UnderGuard.jpg
Someone please look at the feet of the police officers. Something dodgy is going on with that photo. Look at the shadow cast by the plane and then look at the total lack of shadow from the police officers. I'm not saying the plane is fake, just something dodgy about the photos. - laughterkillsme, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I saw one doinga mid air refuel from a passenger plain once.
- Phasm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0posted by Berkana:
"I don't know what exactly it is that inspired the title, but I don't think you can honestly call the F-117 Nighthawk "Gorgeous". "Strange", or "weird", maybe, but that is one of the ugliest planes I've seen in military service."
Function over form, my friend... well, back in its heyday, at least. ;) - Digisurfer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I own an EOS 10D. This looks like a typical low ISO photo taken with a low noise sensor, like the CMOS ones in Canon's digital SLR's, on an overcast day to me. Not surprising that people think it has a fake look to it if that's the case. Post processing probably made the effect worse. What very little shadow there is on an overcast day like this (days we love as photographers specifically because of no harsh shadows by the way), is there if you look very closely. The one from the officer on the right is mostly falling on the officer on the left, and the one from officer on the left is falling across brighter details (the orange stripe mostly) that are obscuring it some what. There are harsher more defined ones under both of their shoes because of their proximity to the ground. The plane is big so it's able to block a decent amount of the light, but anything smaller pretty much casts no shadow at all. Look at other things in the picture, like the cones. No shadows there either. There is just too much light bouncing everywhere on a day like this to create definite directional shadows. Like others have said, there is very little point to Photohoping such an image as well,other than the usual post-processing all digital photographers do after a shoot. Occam's Razor folks.
- TomP, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Now thats smart :D
Tom | http://www.tomwrote.info - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0> You realize you could feed a small country in Africa for a couple years for the cost of one plane. . .
Yes, but you wouldn't be able to gain complete and total air superiority...
...think of the human lives lost? Don't worry, more will be made, just as war will be waged. - kajoob, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0If they're letting people get this close to the F-117, imagine the toys they have that they're *not* showing us. muhahahaha.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0> For those of us that haven't officially been invaded by north america yet,
> it's reassuring to know that they can be shot down.
Mission planning software now accounts for cell tower locations. - Sizzor, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0According to http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-117-specs.htm , the cost of the F117A is $122 Million per plane, but the 36 F117A's that flew in Desert Storm represented less than 4 percent of the total force, but flew over a third of the bombing missions, and was the only plane allowed to bomb Baghdad.
Seems like it's a pretty cost effective plane. I can't believe the U.S. didn't destroy the one lost in Bosnia. Word has it that parts of that plane made their way to Russia in a few weeks of the crash.
http://www.sizzor.net - diggimon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0^^^ That is what i found strange about it.
@Digisurfer - Thanks mate, I was looking round that site and I couldn't get my head round the photos, loads of them have the same effects that I instantly thought "fake" at. Like this one:
http://www.richard-seaman.com/Wallpaper/Aircraft/Fighters/MirageF1Landing11oClock.jpg
I would have said something was going on with that one too, but you're a photographer so I trust your judgment. In that case, cool effect and great photos. I like the fungus ones. - po6ot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"OMGZ ITS FAKED!!!ONEONE"
It seems that paranoia has gripped the tiny minds of some diggers.
Please explain why these photographs of an airplane, that is attending an airshow in the UK, be faked. - mancat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"The skin was weird, it felt like tar paper."
That's because it almost is. The radar absorbing "skin" is even glued onto aircraft in precisely cut sheets... - bosse, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I fail to understand why anybody would want to use pictures of this terrible weapon as screen savers.
- vectormax, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Nice Pics! If your ever in southern California check out the air museum at March Air Base. They have an SR-71 on display. It was awesome to walk underneath it and touch it's belly. I was stationed in Okinawa back in the late 70's early 80's and you couldn't get close. The locals called it the "Habu" for the local mongoose that ran wild. I did see the F117 at a local airshow and wasn't as impressed, especially knowing that the SR-71 is still the fastest plane, a shame it's decommissioned.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Richard takes some great pictures - definiate DIGG and check out his whole site at http://www.richard-seaman.com/
- deut, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Checked out the rest of the site, some fantastic photos of loads of other aircraft as well.
http://www.richard-seaman.com/Aircraft/AirShows/index.html - CarbonAndroid, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Good for drug smuggling.
- horar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0> Mission planning software now accounts for cell tower locations.
Thank you for that valuable information. Although you are a traitor to your country, you will be remembered as a hero in ours. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0did u see on 24 when one of these bad boys shot of a rocket? these are f---ing bombers for chist sakes!
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0great photos. i want one.
- TylerFu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0why are people digging this? they are just some random pictures of nighthawk... and they are small too...
- ishmael5, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"How many people can say they touched a stealth fighter?"
I can, i live in dayton, ohio, and at 22, and having been to the air force museum more times than I can count, i still love the museum...and as for the comments about gaurds, i jsut went a couple weeks ago, and there were no gaurds, and, as usual i couldn't resist touching the f-117, and the sr-71, those are my 2 favorite planes. and the air force museum is great! - MasterRuthless, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Great pictures loved them all as well as the others linked from there.
Thanks alot for sharing them :) -
Show 51 - 100 of 118 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 
