Sort of.  IIRC they take quick back to back photos with different filters that share an image sensor, so the smearing you&#x27;re seeing is the combined motion vectors of the satellite and the aircraft.

Interestingly, it gives us information about the orientation of pixels on the satellite.

to be fair, stealth has never meant &quot;invisible&quot; when it comes to planes

I wonder if imaging from above could actually be a threat for these planes. I mean -- stick cameras on all the SpaceX satellites and you&#x27;ve got an awful lot of eyeballs in LEO, right? Might at least be able to tell a ground based radar where to focus their search...

I&#x27;m sure you wrote this in jest, but in case people aren&#x27;t aware: The &quot;Stealth&quot; in &quot;Stealth bomber&quot; refer to hiding the plane from anti-aircraft defenses like  radar, infrared, acoustics and some optical visibility, but the anti-reflective paint that is used for hiding it optically is only on the underside, not on the top.

&gt; During the 1999 yugoslavia bombings, after the first one was shot downThat was a F-117 Night Hawk “Stealth Fighter” (a type which is now retired), not a B-2 Spirit “Stealth Bomber”.

The Serbians made a poster saying &quot;Sorry, we didn&#x27;t know it was invisible&quot; after they shot down a stealth F-117. The full story and a picture of the poster at this link:
<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.warhistoryonline.com&#x2F;instant-articles&#x2F;serbs-shot-down-invisible-f-117.html" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.warhistoryonline.com&#x2F;instant-articles&#x2F;serbs-shot...</a>

During the 1999 yugoslavia bombings, after the first one was shot down, there was a joking apology on the TV, something along the lines of &quot;Sorry, we didn&#x27;t see it&quot; :)

you can see the engine exhaust plums, and that would be pretty bright in IR. Very hard to hide burning that much fuel. If you magnify a bit you also can see that the engine exists are pretty bright even in visible wavelength (though that isn&#x27;t visible from the below and front of the plane).

<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=gr9KS-hmXyU" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=gr9KS-hmXyU</a>

Looks like their home base is nearby. So maybe not too surprising?<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.google.com&#x2F;maps?ll=38.730306,-93.547864&amp;z=12&amp;t=h&amp;q=38.730306,-93.547864&amp;hl=de" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.google.com&#x2F;maps?ll=38.730306,-93.547864&amp;z=12&amp;t=h...</a>

I don&#x27;t think I realized how huge the B2 actually is.

It&#x27;s only ~25 miles from the one base in the US that hosts an active B2 wing. There&#x27;s another on the ground there in Google Maps;<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.google.com&#x2F;maps&#x2F;place&#x2F;38%C2%B043&#x27;29.7%22N+93%C2%B033&#x27;37.0%22W&#x2F;@38.7243803,-93.5612188,725m&#x2F;data=!3m1!1e3!4m14!1m7!3m6!1s0x0:0xd87af7588b9c362e!2zMznCsDAxJzE4LjUiTiA5M8KwMzUnNDAuNSJX!3b1!8m2!3d39.0218056!4d-93.5945833!3m5!1s0x0:0xb9729eada81e2c56!7e2!8m2!3d38.7249294!4d-93.5602629" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.google.com&#x2F;maps&#x2F;place&#x2F;38%C2%B043&#x27;29.7%22N+93%C2%...</a>

The college town near the airbase made it pretty well known that the airforce base nearby has these B-2s when I took a campus tour years ago.Granted I like aerospace engineering as a software engineer so I grew up knowing about it ahead of time, and it&#x27;s only an hour and a half drive away.

I would love to know if this was found other than randomly poking around and if so how it worked specifically. &quot;out of place shapes in the middle of fields&quot; might find out some other neat stuff too.

I would assume that the plane or satellite moving affects this too, it&#x27;s presumably being corrected but there might be some parallax.

Can you calculate the time of day from the shadow&#x27;s length as well?<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.google.com&#x2F;maps&#x2F;place&#x2F;39%C2%B001&#x27;18.5%22N+93%C2%B035&#x27;40.5%22W&#x2F;@38.7250343,-93.5601605,261m&#x2F;data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0xd87af7588b9c362e!8m2!3d39.0218056!4d-93.5945833" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.google.com&#x2F;maps&#x2F;place&#x2F;39%C2%B001&#x27;18.5%22N+93%C2%...</a>

The google maps scale shows the plane as being pretty close to that length as well. I think the satellite is high enough up that altitude scaling for aircraft is going to be minimal.I see about a 10 foot separation between colors.Velocity = distance &#x2F; time400 mph is 587 fps.10 &#x2F; 587 = 17 ms

One might be able to calibrate this by using cars in the area close to the shot [1]. Assuming most cars are driving at the speed limit[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.google.com&#x2F;maps&#x2F;place&#x2F;38%C2%B059&#x27;37.1%22N+93%C2%B035&#x27;53.1%22W&#x2F;@38.993634,-93.5986325,194m&#x2F;data=!3m2!1e3!4b1!4m6!3m5!1s0x0:0x742cea5a871cac29!7e2!8m2!3d38.9936337!4d-93.598084" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.google.com&#x2F;maps&#x2F;place&#x2F;38%C2%B059&#x27;37.1%22N+93%C2%...</a>

My napkin calculations are that the three channels are ~10ms apart, given the bomber is 69 feet nose-to-tail* and an assumption of 400 mph velocity.* <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.dept.aoe.vt.edu&#x2F;~mason&#x2F;Mason_f&#x2F;B2Spr09.pdf" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.dept.aoe.vt.edu&#x2F;~mason&#x2F;Mason_f&#x2F;B2Spr09.pdf</a>

Absolutely! [0]In fact, the first color photos in the world were taken this way in the early 1900s [1]: take three monochrome exposures onto black and white transparencies with R&#x2F;G&#x2F;B filters, and then project the three images together.[0] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;leicarumors.com&#x2F;2020&#x2F;01&#x2F;29&#x2F;color-photography-with-the-leica-m10-monochrom-camera-m10m.aspx&#x2F;amp&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;leicarumors.com&#x2F;2020&#x2F;01&#x2F;29&#x2F;color-photography-with-th...</a>[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.m.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Sergey_Prokudin-Gorsky" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.m.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Sergey_Prokudin-Gorsky</a>

Sergey Prokudin-Gorsky‘s work shows both the benefits and drawbacks of the swapping filters approach

The first imaging driver that I wrote was for an HD frame store that had a camera with a spinning filter disk.

I wouldn&#x27;t be surprised if these military bombing dudes not only took R, G, B, but also near IR, far IR, UV, and various other things. If they did it would make no sense to try to make a Bayer filter for all of that and rather just have multiple filtered cameras pointed at the same direction.

Many cameras, especially medium format like Fuji GFX, can do &quot;pixel shift&quot; capture, where they use the sensor stabilization to shift the sensor by one pixel at a time to ensure red, green, and blue are each captured at all pixels, without needing demosaicing. The camera has to be mounted on a tripod for this to work - like any stacking requires, really.

It&#x27;s standard when using reflectic&#x2F;catadioptic objectives to peek back at where the satellites are: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.astroshop.eu&#x2F;filter-wheels-filter-sliders&#x2F;starlight-xpress-usb-filterwheel-7x-1-25-t2-t2&#x2F;p,23748" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.astroshop.eu&#x2F;filter-wheels-filter-sliders&#x2F;starli...</a>
This one has USB, the same style with manual operation via a teethed wheel is like 169 EUR at that shop.
Or consider rigging a burnt-out DLP projector&#x27;s filter wheel up, which comes with a motor and encoder that you could use to capture imagery with the filters they provide at much higher frame rates (a few hundred fps in the monochrome domain seem usual these days, AFAIK, for good consumer DLP projectors).

I wonder if there are ways to get superior (compared to Bayer) color images from conventional raw-capable monochrome digital cameras (like Leica Q2 Monochrom) in static scenes using similar workflows of taking three separate shots.

You can use this difference in time to calculate the speed (although you also have to account for parallax for an aircraft)<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov&#x2F;pmc&#x2F;articles&#x2F;PMC6651096&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov&#x2F;pmc&#x2F;articles&#x2F;PMC6651096&#x2F;</a>

Unless you aren’t military and then no infrared for you

Doing it this way allows not only higher resolution, but you can also use different types of filter for specialist applications. Infrared for example, or some kind of narrow band pass filters etc.

Now that’s an interesting idea. Anyone care to spin this up?

That&#x27;s a super interesting idea. I would love to see something like this.

Is there a dataset with all the close-up satellite images somewhere?

A guy did it with trucks for Sentinel-2 data. 
<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.esa.int&#x2F;Applications&#x2F;Observing_the_Earth&#x2F;Monitoring_trucks_and_trade_from_space" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.esa.int&#x2F;Applications&#x2F;Observing_the_Earth&#x2F;Monitor...</a>

Interesting. A search for those gradients could help find all fast moving objects in the satellite images.

This is what we do all the time for astrophography! We buy monochrome cameras without an IR filter and take 3 photos and recombine them.

Thank you.  I was wondering where that was.
Now, can someone calculate the plane&#x27;s altitude?

Shadow of this object is also distorted: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;goo.gl&#x2F;maps&#x2F;VWwtt1PbLJVkbiBS9" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;goo.gl&#x2F;maps&#x2F;VWwtt1PbLJVkbiBS9</a>

Also came here to discuss this. Super interesting opportunity to reverse what they&#x27;re doing. Yeah I&#x27;d agree it&#x27;s color filters which would avoid duplicating lenses (probably the most expensive component) or dividing the light energy. Filters would give you the most photons per color per shot. I wonder if the filters are mechanical or electronic somehow. As another commenter calculated, it&#x27;s 10ms between shots, which is not that impractical to move physical filters around when you consider modern consumer camera shutter speeds of around 0.125 milliseconds max.

True but if that were the case here it would also likely affect the ground.

Different wave lengths travel at different speeds through glass and air and focus differently even on the same lens when color photos are taken in the single frame.<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.m.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Chromatic_aberration" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.m.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Chromatic_aberration</a>

Your guess is exactly right, this type of imaging is pretty common with satellite imaging for the reasons you mentioned. Scott Manley talks about it in this video iirc <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;youtu.be&#x2F;Wah1DbFVFiY" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;youtu.be&#x2F;Wah1DbFVFiY</a>

Seems unlikely to me. With push broom, I&#x27;d think you&#x27;d get characteristic squishing, stretching, or skewing of objects in motion depending on whether the object was moving against, with, or perpendicular to the push broom path. In this case with the imaging satellite probably in polar orbit and the plane flying east, you likely see the plane horizontally skewed as each horizontal row of pixels captured the plane further east.

Is it possible this is a a pushbroom sensor, where red, green, and blue sensors are moved along the path of the plane or satellite that&#x27;s taking the image? My understanding is those have a higher effective resolution than frame-based sensors, which would make sense here.

I think modern satellites have matrix sensors

Is the R&#x2F;G&#x2F;B separation greater because these sensors are built like TDI CCD lines?edit: Seems like pushbroom is the name for TDI when it&#x27;s put in a satellite.

For anyone wondering about what a pushboom sensor is - <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;citeseerx.ist.psu.edu&#x2F;viewdoc&#x2F;download?doi=10.1.1.72.124&amp;rep=rep1&amp;type=pdf" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;citeseerx.ist.psu.edu&#x2F;viewdoc&#x2F;download?doi=10.1.1.72....</a>Basically a 1D sensor that acquires a 2D image because the camera itself is moving.In this case, I&#x27;d imagine that there are 3 such sensors for RGB.

I don’t think this is the case as we don’t see any rolling shutter distortion. The linear sensor scans just like a shutter curtain exhibiting the same distortion. The plane is proportioned correctly. Maybe the scan time is fast enough.

Exactly! I&#x27;m working on some stuff now to exploit this very effect, the small time difference in the bands can be used to find velocities of moving objects.

So... does anyone have a tool handy to correct the frames?Better yet... does anyone have the corrected image?

The B2 bomber photo isn&#x27;t from a push boom sensor, because it would be distorted since it&#x27;s moving relative to the camera. This would manifest itself as a shear along the motion vector . There is no shear in this photo, only spectral bands.I&#x27;ve spent a number of years doing image orthorectification, and satellite imagery post-processing, then also worked on Google Earth and Google Maps, so I can tell you precisely what happened. This is a satellite image from a satellite which photographs different spectra at different times. There isn&#x27;t enough parallax at typical orbital distance for this much displacement to come from multiple cameras. Looking at some parked cars, this looks like 20-30cm resolution per pixel, which is consistent with the newer earth imaging satellites.Google Earth made a blog post about this a while ago (<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.gearthblog.com&#x2F;blog&#x2F;archives&#x2F;2015&#x2F;03&#x2F;planes-flight-rainbow-effect.html" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.gearthblog.com&#x2F;blog&#x2F;archives&#x2F;2015&#x2F;03&#x2F;planes-flig...</a>)

I must say there is quite some beauty in the choice and structure of words here.

These are pushbroom linear sensors stacked up in the focal plane. The spectral channels are physically separated by larger distance than neighboring pixels in a Bayer grid. There is a time delay between each channel sweeping over the same location that gets corrected when the final imagery is aligned. The moving plane at altitude violates assumption of a static scene and exposes the scanning behavior.

I grabbed my red and blue glasses because this vaguely looked like a 3D anaglyph to me, and while it&#x27;s not the clearest such image, it definitely appears as a cohesive object hovering above a flat map.  Further I zoom out, it definitely looks like it.  Inadvertent byproduct of however this was photographed or stitched?

That&#x27;s a lot of words to rationalize away what is very clearly and obviously a cloaking device at work!!

Fun fact: this is called a Harris Shutter effect when it&#x27;s done for art purposes.

Actually the camera is (assuming geostationary orbits arę not used for imaging) moving ar speeds much much faster than the plane

First RED, then BLUE, and last but not least GREEN!

There is plenty of RGB planes on Google Maps <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;duckduckgo.com&#x2F;?q=rgb+plane+on+google+maps+!gi" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;duckduckgo.com&#x2F;?q=rgb+plane+on+google+maps+!gi</a>

Interesting how the three separate R&#x2F;G&#x2F;B images are taken independently a few ~seconds~ milliseconds apart, with a different color filter placed over the image sensor.I assume this is to maximize resolution, since no Bayer interpolation [0] is needed to demosaic the output of a traditional image sensor that integrates the color filters onto the sensor pixels themselves. As these satellites are not intended to photograph things in motion, the color channel alignment artifacts seen here are a rare, small price to pay for vastly improved resolution and absence of demosaicing artifacts.[0] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.m.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Bayer_filter" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.m.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Bayer_filter</a>

I was googling to see what shape matched that and found this. Looks like not the first time this (probably b2?) type of plane was caught on candid camera ;0<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.kmbc.com&#x2F;article&#x2F;satellite-image-b-2-stealth-bomber-off-runway-at-whiteman-air-force-base&#x2F;37614295" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.kmbc.com&#x2F;article&#x2F;satellite-image-b-2-stealth-bom...</a>

nice catch! I think the altitude could be calculated roughly if we knew the the day of the year the photo was taken.

I wonder how low it is, found the shadow of it close by 39.02468482732915, -93.6023120071418 <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.google.com&#x2F;maps&#x2F;place&#x2F;39%C2%B001&#x27;28.9%22N+93%C2%B036&#x27;08.3%22W&#x2F;@39.0240473,-93.6064184,1279m&#x2F;data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0xd2feed9eacb2542!8m2!3d39.0246848!4d-93.602312" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.google.com&#x2F;maps&#x2F;place&#x2F;39%C2%B001&#x27;28.9%22N+93%C2%...</a>

This kind of looks like purple fringing but it&#x27;s not, see other comments saying this is lag in a multi shot image.

Interesting how you can see the chromatic aberration on the bomber but not the ground. I guess that this implies that the optical and&#x2F;or software correction that they&#x27;re doing only works within a _very_ narrow focal plane, given the relative proximity of the bomber to the ground.This is kind of surprising, because if the tolerances for avoiding chromatic aberration are that small, whatever is collecting this data would have to be constantly adjusting its optics or software based on the topography.EDIT: it&#x27;s not chromatic aberration, it&#x27;s pixel misalignment caused by the object being in motion: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=29627917" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=29627917</a>

Now, seeing Tupolev over the fields in the area would give you chills.

I’d guess if you have fields in that area, seeing a B-2 over them is routine.

Imagine the chills you&#x27;d get seeing that on GEarth if you&#x27;re just looking to see a picture of your fields.

Awesome! There was a commercial jet caught in the imagery of Downtown San Mateo for about a year, and I always loved looking at it when I was looking up an address. It&#x27;s cool how much more pronounced the separate RGB is - It was pretty clear even on that commercial jet, but it&#x27;s very psychedelic here.

And The B-2s are apparently stationed at Whiteman Air Force Base[1]. Just due south of the image. Perhaps lining up for a landing approach?1 - <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Whiteman_Air_Force_Base" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Whiteman_Air_Force_Base</a>

&gt;After the defense cutbacks in the 90s, he could only find minimum wage jobs for the rest of his working life.That&#x27;s unfortunate to hear. Hope he&#x27;s doing well now, in his retirement life.

In case anyone else is reading and thinking of that predicament, it needn&#x27;t be a showstopper.You have a couple of options:You can do it the old way, and pay someone to convert it into the new way (I know a mechanical engineer who either sketches things or does 2D on a computer, and pays someone else to 3D it) which can then be sent to the client or manufacturer or whatever.Or, if you&#x27;re doing the whole product to sell, you can do it however you want, no one cares how their product was designed, just that the end product is good. I don&#x27;t know how the housing on the monitor I&#x27;m looking at was designed, and I don&#x27;t care, I just care that it&#x27;s decent.I feel like I count rant about this for a while, but all the &quot;rules&quot; change if you&#x27;re taking clients or customers and not looking for FTE. It&#x27;s got its own challenges, but with a few good &#x2F; high paying clients, it&#x27;s even easier than FTE, you can grow or not if you want.

Could he not take a class or an apprenticeship for CAD?

My father-in-law helped design the pilot seat for that.Unfortunately he was unable to make the transition to computer aided design. After the defense cutbacks in the 90s, he could only find minimum wage jobs for the rest of his working life.

That&#x27;s while probably really effective at its job, it&#x27;s not really the most of anything. The B-1B for example is faster and can carry more ordinance.

Every time I&#x27;ve seen one fly overhead I&#x27;ve thought that it looks like a beautiful alien spacecraft.

The B-2 Spirit is insane. People usually know the SR-71, but I personally think the B-2 is straight up savage - aesthetically alien, impossibly aerial, and incomprehensibly powerful. Its silhoutte is terrifying: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;i.imgur.com&#x2F;WqMvxXg.jpg" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;i.imgur.com&#x2F;WqMvxXg.jpg</a>What a beast: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.northropgrumman.com&#x2F;what-we-do&#x2F;air&#x2F;b-2-stealth-bomber&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.northropgrumman.com&#x2F;what-we-do&#x2F;air&#x2F;b-2-stealth-b...</a>

They have a radar cross section of a large bird

The aircraft seems to be a Northrop Grumman B-2 Spirit.&gt; The Northrop (later Northrop Grumman) B-2 Spirit, also known as the Stealth Bomber, is an American heavy strategic bomber, featuring low observable stealth technology designed for penetrating dense anti-aircraft defenses. Designed during the Cold War, it is a flying wing design with a crew of two.[1][3] The bomber is subsonic and can deploy both conventional and thermonuclear weapons, such as up to eighty 500-pound class (230 kg) Mk 82 JDAM GPS-guided bombs, or sixteen 2,400-pound (1,100 kg) B83 nuclear bombs. The B-2 is the only acknowledged aircraft that can carry large air-to-surface standoff weapons in a stealth configuration.<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Northrop_Grumman_B-2_Spirit" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Northrop_Grumman_B-2_Spirit</a>

Here&#x27;s another: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.google.com&#x2F;maps&#x2F;place&#x2F;39%C2%B001&#x27;18.5%22N+93%C2%B035&#x27;40.5%22W&#x2F;@38.7250343,-93.5601605,261m&#x2F;data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0xd87af7588b9c362e!8m2!3d39.0218056!4d-93.5945833" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.google.com&#x2F;maps&#x2F;place&#x2F;39%C2%B001&#x27;18.5%22N+93%C2%...</a>

Correct, but don&#x27;t misunderestimate the power of knowledge.Let&#x27;s assume that some adversary is out there keeping track of these planes, and knows that they can scan Google maps for the RGB artifact by the engines to locate them reliably and programmatically.Now Google maps becomes a repository for information that adversary may use to validate other information. Maybe this confirms the schedule for some training excersise. Maybe this particular B2 being in this location validates or invalidates other information about US troop strength abroad.I was taught to always &quot;assume your adversary is capable of going through your trash&quot; and try to prepare my &quot;trash&quot; accordingly.

i doubt they&#x27;d remove it for security reasons - as you say, there&#x27;s nothing secret about what this plane is doing here. more that they&#x27;d remove it for the same reasons they remove clouds or any other in-air objects that obscure the thing they&#x27;re actually trying to take photos of.the plane isn&#x27;t part of the map, so it shouldn&#x27;t be on the map. even if it&#x27;s not obscuring anything, they use satellite photos to generate building outlines, and this isn&#x27;t a building. given how many planes there are flying all the time, and how infrequently you see them on google maps, they must make an effort to publish satellite imagery that doensn&#x27;t have planes in it.

I wouldn&#x27;t expect it to get deleted for any kind of security reason... but it will get replaced, and possibly faster because there&#x27;s a defect. Moving object artifacts are undesirable and make the image more difficult to use especially for automation (such as Google&#x27;s registration). They tend to get knocked out automatically over time as the composition algorithms try to keep a neatly consistent scene. They may even be handled as clouds depending on which methods Google uses to avoid cloud cover. This is the same force that has slowly worked most alignment and registration marks out of Google imagery (for a long time aerial imagery usually contained registration marks etched into the camera optics), although you will still find them especially in areas that are more challenging to register by machine vision (deserts, etc).Aircraft in Keyhole and Google Earth used to be extremely common before the composition methods improved and more imagery sources became available. You could just about make out the traffic pattern at some airports. You can still find them but they&#x27;re much rarer today.

Wait until you see what&#x27;s hiding in the cornfield under the B-2.

Would be disappointing for them to remove it for basically no reason, especially considering you can see a B-2 parked on the tarmac (<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.google.com&#x2F;maps&#x2F;place&#x2F;38%C2%B043&#x27;29.9%22N+93%C2%B033&#x27;37.0%22W&#x2F;@38.7250408,-93.5604979,184m&#x2F;data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x943968ed52c54f3f!8m2!3d38.7249797!4d-93.5602792" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.google.com&#x2F;maps&#x2F;place&#x2F;38%C2%B043&#x27;29.9%22N+93%C2%...</a>) in the nearby Whiteman AFB. The B-2 was first flown 32 years ago. Its existence is neither covert or secret, but often used to do flybys at freaking football games where thousands of recording devices are present and active. There&#x27;s virtually no national security risk with these images because any imagery obtainable by Google Maps would&#x27;ve been obtainable by whatever adversary long ago, plus some more.

This particular image was done by Maxar, you can see it in the lower right corner.

Is Google taking their own satellite pictures now, or are these from Maxar, or another provider?

lol why would they? The B-2 even flies with radar reflectors in civil airspace so that ATC can track it.

You can already see it happening in the first reply to this parent:<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=29628333" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=29628333</a>

Ugh, so when Google does a normal map update, unless there just happens to be a B-2 flying in the same spot, the conspiracy nutjobs are going to think there&#x27;s some Google &#x2F; US government conspiracy.The truth is the fact these planes exist and that there is a base nearby is public knowledge. Any country that cares already has its satellite imagery at much higher resoltion and realtime.

Screenshot for when it will have been deleted by Google <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;i.imgur.com&#x2F;toSC5a0.png" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;i.imgur.com&#x2F;toSC5a0.png</a> .

Why would this be blurred? There is nothing in the picture that&#x27;s not already known in far more detail. I have some B-2 pictures with way more detail I took in Pasadena during the Rose Bowl.

What an interesting design for a lawnmower. Joking aside, better make a screenshot because this is liable to be blurred soon.

Not surprising really because it&#x27;s less than 40km from Whiteman AFB.

Literally 30-min drive north of Whiteman...not a coincidence.

More here - <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=yDyBwcdy5KA&amp;ab_channel=GoogleEarthMovies" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=yDyBwcdy5KA&amp;ab_channel=Googl...</a>

Considering the 1000s of planes flying over the USA at any given moment, surprising this is the first time I see a plane captured in mid-flight.

The best air show I&#x27;ve ever been to was at Will Rogers World Airport in OKC.  I figure some of it must be the proximity to Tinker, but also other bases in the area.  Back in 95 (could have been 96, but not any later, as I left the area late that year), they brought a B-2 to the show, flew it around the airport for a while, landed it, waited a while so people could get take as many pictures as they wanted, then took off and flew it home.  At the same show, they brought an F-117, did the flyby, and landed it.  Then taxi&#x27;d it over to a static display area so people could get close.  I was able to walk underneath it and touch it.  As a young airman, I was absolutely floored.  And this was in 95 or 96, so we were still really impressed with how exotic these planes were.

I was about to say, I grew up about 10 minutes from here and they were a common sight. Always thrilling to see.IIRC Whiteman has an air show every year where you can get &quot;up close&quot; to them.

Yeah I remember being thrilled seeing them while canoeing on the Gasconade when I was a kid in the 90s.  I believe that we saw one refueling behind a KC-10 in the air as well.

Poland still operates MIG-29s, as well as extremely outdated Su-22.<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Polish_Air_Force#Current_inventory" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Polish_Air_Force#Current_inven...</a>

Apparently prior to getting their hands on a MiG-25 from a defector who took one to Japan, many in the western military and intelligence communities envisioned it to have super avionic powers (that persisted for a long time in the civilian sphere).  They thought it was agile and fast.  What they didn&#x27;t know is that it could only sustain those speeds for short spurts (else the engines suffered from metal fatigue due to temperature) and the maneuverability they envisioned from the geometry proved to be false (it had a very wide turning radius)...

Yes, nice comment.I remember being part of the staff of NATO&#x27;s only MIG squadron during military service. People considered a MIG within NATO a sensation, while I was simply bored. I saw them every day in droves. ;)

that&#x27;s awesome.. I thought Army bases are masked on maps.

They can also be seen at Hickam AFB here: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.google.com&#x2F;maps&#x2F;@21.3310109,-157.946255,241m&#x2F;data=!3m1!1e3" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.google.com&#x2F;maps&#x2F;@21.3310109,-157.946255,241m&#x2F;dat...</a>

Omg, are they sooo huge?I just realised how big they are for the first time in my life. What a sight![edit] 
172ft = 52m wingspan!

On Google Earth you can use the timeline feature to actually see when the imagery was captured (or at least uploaded?). The plane sitting near the hangers was from a capture in May 2016. Google Earth currently shows several newer captures, including one from September 2021. The current one from September 2021 is actually far more interesting in my opinion. In it, you can see a B2 sitting in a field about a quarter up the runway (38°43&#x27;27.63&quot;N 93°32&#x27;54.86&quot;W) with stuff scattered all around it and trucks sitting on the runway. <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;i.imgur.com&#x2F;lh1hkWN.png" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;i.imgur.com&#x2F;lh1hkWN.png</a>

Seems like you&#x27;re right - there&#x27;s one parked on (indeed) Whiteman Air Force Base right here <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;goo.gl&#x2F;maps&#x2F;x8738SicBvtSPqmR6" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;goo.gl&#x2F;maps&#x2F;x8738SicBvtSPqmR6</a>

Whiteman AFB is about 20 miles south and a little east of the plane in this image.

I grew up in the south of the state but I remember them flying overhead when I was a kid now and again. Always stood out like a sore thumb, left a particular contrail too as I recall.

Do you think you could obtain video of base&#x27;s plutonium isolation module?(sorry, couldn&#x27;t resist obscure early Simpsons reference: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=J8s4AvjnPFk" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=J8s4AvjnPFk</a>)

Have you ever visited the „Clock Nook”?

I live on a farm very close to this area.All the B-2s are based at nearby Whiteman Air Force Base. They fly over often -- one even fly over my farm today about an hour ago.This one was probably on final approach during the summer when the winds are usually out of the south and was probably about 2,000 feet above the ground.

Its twin sitting on the tarmac at Whiteman<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;goo.gl&#x2F;maps&#x2F;tvNapjiLCJMVa3fx6" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;goo.gl&#x2F;maps&#x2F;tvNapjiLCJMVa3fx6</a>Edit: grammar

Plane: 39.02177585879624, -93.59455907552
Shadow: 39.024670893611805, -93.60232594974401I wonder what this can tell us about it&#x27;s speed, altitude, etc.

There is a shadow of stealth bomber: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;goo.gl&#x2F;maps&#x2F;VWwtt1PbLJVkbiBS9" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;goo.gl&#x2F;maps&#x2F;VWwtt1PbLJVkbiBS9</a>I&#x27;m curious... Will google delete it too?

Military adversaries have plenty of sources of their own imagery, and the commercial imagery industry is large and international. It&#x27;s just not a tractable problem to try to keep people from obtaining good aerial imagery of military installations, and it&#x27;s become fairly rare for anyone to try. We know that various military organizations have taken active measures to prevent imaging of sensitive activity (e.g. returning vehicles to same parking positions before passes of known IMINT satellites) but it&#x27;s not a very easy thing to do, especially in the US which is heavily covered by both commercial and foreign satellites in various orbits like sun-synchronous and Molniya.1Some military installations do receive a degree of protection by means of restricted airspace which mostly prevents commercial aerial imaging, meaning that only lower spatial resolution satellite images are available. But even this isn&#x27;t really that common, and there&#x27;s no systematic restriction on commercial imagery operators overflying military installations if airspace permits it.

Shouldn&#x27;t military bases be blurred out on Google Maps?

Here is a stealth Bomber on the ground...
<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;maps.app.goo.gl&#x2F;eJ2SU9SzE8D6JaZN9" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;maps.app.goo.gl&#x2F;eJ2SU9SzE8D6JaZN9</a>

Parked aircraft, same model, just south at Whiteman AFB.<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.google.com&#x2F;maps&#x2F;@38.7249682,-93.5601479,19z&#x2F;data=!3m1!1e3" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.google.com&#x2F;maps&#x2F;@38.7249682,-93.5601479,19z&#x2F;data...</a>

The attribution on google maps for the image is for a satellite imaging company.

Good math. I don&#x27;t know why everyone else is assuming this photo is from a spacecraft. Virtually all of the aerial images of America on Google Earth are taken with aircraft, not spacecraft.

A small roll of the place at the time the photo was taken could also explain this difference.

The measured wingspan (using the Google Maps distance measure tool) is around 200 feet whereas the measured wingspan of a B-2 on the ground at nearby Whiteman AFB is the nominal 172 feet, so its altitude AGL is roughly 14% of the altitude of the camera plane that took the photo.

Taken down by the government?Id be surprised if the military is bothered by this. I have nothing to do with military etc but assume China&#x2F;Russia have high res satellites taking photos&#x2F;scans across airbases on a regular basis and have much better quality to investigate the technology than a google sat image.

Archived before it&#x27;s taken down: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;archive.ph&#x2F;E8xih" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;archive.ph&#x2F;E8xih</a>(don&#x27;t spam click it, it is already extremely slow to load, the last thing we want to do is DDOS archive.ph)

They take a separate high-res monochromatic picture. (As image compression theory tells us, if you can afford to sacrifice some colour resolution for monochromatic resolution -- do it.)

Does anyone have a theory on why some photos have a rainbow plane and a solid white place offset?

What does alpha channel mean in this context? Usually it means transparency but how would you take a picture of that?

Do you mean luminance? Alpha usually refers to the transparency channel in an RGBA image.Whereas I believe you&#x27;re describing more of a YUV setup

It&#x27;s interesting how some satellites take the alpha channel pic before the RGB channels, and some do it after. The lag also changes. Alpha &amp; RGB have similar lags for some, but alpha is way off on others.

&gt; Rather than taking a photograph, satellite sensors record electromagnetic radiation in the red, blue, green, and high-resolution panchromatic (black-and-white) bands (as well as several not visible to the human eye, as this Mapbox[2] post helpfully explains). When these bands are combined to produce a visible imageThat&#x27;s the same as taking a (normal, digital) photograph (sans additional non-rgb layers), just explained.

“Rather than taking a photograph, satellite sensors record electromagnetic radiation in the red, blue, green, and high-resolution panchromatic (black-and-white) bands (as well as several not visible to the human eye, as this Mapbox[2] post helpfully explains). When these bands are combined to produce a visible image, fast-moving objects – like planes in flight – don’t quite match up, producing the rainbow effect.[2] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;blog.mapbox.com&#x2F;putting-landsat-8s-bands-to-work-631c4029e9d1" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;blog.mapbox.com&#x2F;putting-landsat-8s-bands-to-work-631...</a>

Reminds me of when Russia tried to blame Ukraine for downing the MH17 by producing a satellite image of the plane being chased by a jet fighter and even capturing the moment of launching the missile. Of course none of the moving objects had any sign of the color shifting.<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;nationalpost.com&#x2F;news&#x2F;russian-satellite-image-of-mh17-being-shot-down-by-fighter-jet-dismissed-as-crude-fake" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;nationalpost.com&#x2F;news&#x2F;russian-satellite-image-of-mh1...</a>

Artist James Bridle calls them &quot;Rainbow planes&quot; and has used this in his art.Rainbow Plane 002: Kiev. October 29, 2014: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;booktwo.org&#x2F;notebook&#x2F;rainbow-plane-002-kiev&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;booktwo.org&#x2F;notebook&#x2F;rainbow-plane-002-kiev&#x2F;</a>Rainbow Planes: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.flickr.com&#x2F;photos&#x2F;stml&#x2F;sets&#x2F;72157637938061015&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.flickr.com&#x2F;photos&#x2F;stml&#x2F;sets&#x2F;72157637938061015&#x2F;</a>

They smash-and-grab thermonuclear bombs all the time over there.

If you look at the photo of the B-2 on the ground I think you can make our the 14 hangars where they would park them overnight (I heard street crime is pretty hot on Whitman AFB) to the right of the staging area.

Yeah quite the opposite.  This is easily my favorite plane design ever made.

B-2 Spirit, not nearly ugly enough to be a Nighthawk.

To many of us these are technological marvels. Defenders of our lifestyle and enabler of our ambitions and dreams.To many people in the world these are insidious death machines that lurk unimpeded and can rain down death on entire villages. The embodiment of evil.Without peeling back the veneer of right and wrong, I think it&#x27;s worth pausing to both appreciate the wonder of the machine and to consider the implications of its existence.

Now a real catch would be to get a B21 raider or some other prototype&#x2F;secret airplane.There were a couple of sightings of it - usually it was so high that it&#x27;s hard to be sure but it looked different enough to B2.

I guess this comment would have been really insightful in 1910. It didn&#x27;t wait for the satellites to be the norm for the underdog in a global war see [1] and [2].[1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.m.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;U-boat_campaign" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.m.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;U-boat_campaign</a>[2] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.m.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Battle_of_the_Atlantic" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.m.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Battle_of_the_Atlantic</a>

The new normal of 100% satellite coverage and high resolution daily pictures means future wars will be fought under water by the underdog.

If you are a fairly-serious aerospace, history, or military equipment buff, then allow 2 days for the USAF Museum.  It&#x27;s very good, and it&#x27;s huge.

I visited the USAF Museum earlier this year. It&#x27;s breathtaking just how large the B-2 Spirit is. You can know the plane&#x27;s dimensions going in and it&#x27;ll still blow you away standing next to one.

They let our boyscout troop spend a night there, it was an amazing time

Bit of an aside but I like that the B-2 Spirit has different &quot;Spirit of...&quot; for each aircraft. There are Spirit of New York, Spirit of Ohio, etc. [1]Also if you&#x27;re ever in Ohio and you&#x27;re an aviation or engineering geek, or have kids, or are looking for something to do the USAF Museum is pretty cool! [2][1] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Northrop_Grumman_B-2_Spirit" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Northrop_Grumman_B-2_Spirit</a>[2] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.nationalmuseum.af.mil&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.nationalmuseum.af.mil&#x2F;</a>

Now I know bombers are fed by green trails.

How does people find thins kind of stuff willingly?

People use Google maps
for all kinds of things. Example checking out land for real estate purchase. Or to go travelling virtually. Millions of eyes on points around the globe and you’ll find something.

Potentially dumb question - how do people even find these things???

UFOs tend to come at night, but aerial&#x2F;satellite photography is done during the day.

Interesting in itself there is this, but we never manage to find similar gems for UFOs.

I saw this on Reddit before HN actually. Which is a rarity.

These are the sort of posts I can do without. It&#x27;s like the stuff that goes to the top of reddit. Reddit has a way to keep frontpage of your home page for a reason.

Not a stealth bomber but this Google Maps picture from a few years ago presents a similar effect: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;i.imgur.com&#x2F;P8XVo.jpeg" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;i.imgur.com&#x2F;P8XVo.jpeg</a>(Sorry for the imgur link, I can&#x27;t find a proper source)

Can someone explain? I don&#x27;t see anything, just a location in MO.Update: oh cool! I see it after moving to Satellite and zooming in.

Given the distance between the different colors in the photograph and the internal refresh rate of the camera one should be able to calculate the speed that the plane was traveling at.

I found where they parked it. <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.google.com&#x2F;maps&#x2F;place&#x2F;38%C2%B043&#x27;29.8%22N+93%C2%B033&#x27;36.9%22W&#x2F;@38.724943,-93.5608082,302m&#x2F;data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x1970d138a9a0f666!8m2!3d38.7249444!4d-93.56025" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.google.com&#x2F;maps&#x2F;place&#x2F;38%C2%B043&#x27;29.8%22N+93%C2%...</a>

Now that we have an exact match of what a plane like this looks like from the point of view of a satellite, one could scan the entire Google maps for this same image.

Interesting that Google hasn&#x27;t taken this down yet or at least blur out the map tile.

For a few minutes I was convinced this one had crashed on that mountain top: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.google.com&#x2F;maps&#x2F;place&#x2F;Lake+Tarni%C8%9Ba&#x2F;@46.7229841,23.2728155,340m&#x2F;data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x47491c3c521fa821:0xf32ff8cb8b4aa235!8m2!3d46.7196725!4d23.2777533" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.google.com&#x2F;maps&#x2F;place&#x2F;Lake+Tarni%C8%9Ba&#x2F;@46.7229...</a>

That is an interesting point.Both China and Russia have stealth fighters, but not stealth bombers, from my understanding.China&#x27;s Xian H-20 was to be announced this year. Russia&#x27;s Tupolev PAK-DA is scheduled for 2028.I suspect that the need for stealth bombers is rather low:- If you want to carry large bomb payloads, ICBMs do the trick.- For smaller bomb payloads, they can fit in the fighters.

This makes me wonder. Obviously everyone in the world knows that USA operates a few dozen &quot;stealth bombers&quot; and has for the last couple decades, or so. Has any other country developed these kinds of aircrafts? Similarly, submarines. USA operates many stealth submarines as well. Does any other country operate stealth submarines?I&#x27;m aware that USA spends about 1 tril a year on military stuff but these just seems bizarre to me.

Hmm. Perhaps networked imaging satellites is a viable way to limit the use of stealth aircraft?

One of these flew low over my house in Kansas City last year. It was scheduled to do a fly-by of a local hospital so I was out on the porch watching for it. I saw it pass several miles to the south and went back inside thinking the show was over.  A few minutes later I am sitting on the toilet when the house literally starts shaking. I run outside (barely getting my pants up...) in time to see it come right over top of the house at low altitude!  (Apparently it had just been circling before to line up for the approach.)

Looks like this was first posted to reddit by user &quot;Hippowned&quot;:
<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.reddit.com&#x2F;r&#x2F;Damnthatsinteresting&#x2F;comments&#x2F;rkl236&#x2F;a_stealth_bomber_in_flight_caught_on_google_maps&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.reddit.com&#x2F;r&#x2F;Damnthatsinteresting&#x2F;comments&#x2F;rkl23...</a>And then various news sites picked it up, such as this one:
<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.techradar.com&#x2F;news&#x2F;eagle-eyed-redditor-spots-a-flying-stealth-bomber-on-google-maps" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.techradar.com&#x2F;news&#x2F;eagle-eyed-redditor-spots-a-f...</a>The link to Google Maps appears to be lifted from the above, but credits to the original redditor who found it was lost.

it looks neat. so much to learn in this thread about satellite imagery and calculations.it makes sense to use crowdsourcung to watch earth with real-time satellite imagery, and later augment it with machine learning to find potentially interesting objects.I would be more excited with UFO findings, or a redbull base jumper, or proverbial superman&#x2F;ironman flying.

Is there a way to view this map link without turning off incognito mode in Google Maps? It keeps bugging me.

How in the world do people find these images LOL :)  Awesome!

So how fast is it going according to the blur? 600mph?

This technique of using different filters on top of a monochromatic sensor is also used in astrophotography, it helps with image resolution. You want as much pixels per inch as possible so instead of placing multiple narrow band receptors in your sensor you use a single wide band receptor as your pixel and place a filter in front of the camera, for a RGB camera for example you triple the total number of sensors by doing this.

I was so confused over how a small GA aircraft would be abandoned in the woods just outside the town where I lived. Until I realized it was probably flying when being photographed!

My Safari doesn&#x27;t, in private mode, eventually, open the link at all: after customizing the privacy options (all off), Google still tries to bounce me through googleads.g.doubleclick.net, and I have that blocked.The way I “deal with this” is that I have a work Google account which I&#x27;ve signed into. With that in place, the link just opens. Obviously I have clicked &quot;I accept&quot; on a variety of forms saying Google is allowed to track my activity as they see fit.I guess you can run a browser without ad blocking and the link will open after accepting the terms. However, I prefer to still block ads even in private mode for various reasons.

I blindly accept the terms in Firefox private mode, consult the content, then close the tab, which deletes all cookies AFAIK.

Offtopic, it takes me 6 clicks to access google maps (click to “customize” privacy options, select “off” three times, “continue”, and “use web” when asked about downloading an app). I’m on iOS and use safari in private mode. How are others dealing with this? Do you accept the terms or do you do something different?

Looking at Street View in that direction from the road along the north side of the property, you can see an object in flight:<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;goo.gl&#x2F;maps&#x2F;cJUe8YqWVM6v9Fme8" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;goo.gl&#x2F;maps&#x2F;cJUe8YqWVM6v9Fme8</a>I think that&#x27;s just a bird though!

This makes me wonder if military operations also take into account satellite positions when timing operations. Theoretically, having access to a satellite live feed and good processing software, one could potentially detect stealth bombers visually, probably even at night thanks to widespread light pollution (the plane would appear as a dark spot). Or am I missing something?

Looks like St. Louis is about to get some freedom.

I&#x27;m wondering in which what is the purpose of the stealth bomber on that specific day.

In Sīnīs, this kind of thing wouldn&#x27;t see the light. We aren&#x27;t supposed to see anything like this. Also that bird is beautiful, if only it weren&#x27;t designed to kill.

Stealth bomber in flight on Google Maps