It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is the Aurora spy plane retired or was it just a myth?

page: 5
7
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 24 2014 @ 04:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

The outdoor displays at the Boeing museum of Flight don't have as much problem with the fading paint, up here they just turn green with the moss growth on the top surfaces.




posted on Nov, 24 2014 @ 05:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Sammamishman

It was weird. The newer jets like the F-106 and F-15 held up just fine. The WWII birds went in every four or five years.



posted on Nov, 24 2014 @ 09:10 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

The biggest problem with the HiMAT is that there is a lot of Bondo on top of the wings and it has a tendency to crack and peel due to the extreme temperature variations in the desert. The YF-117A had the same problem when it was displayed at Blackbird Airpark. Outdoor exhibits in the Mojave are also subject to sandblasting and flexing thanks to frequent windstorms.



posted on Nov, 24 2014 @ 09:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Shadowhawk

Ah Bondo. That's something I don't miss much. Great stuff, but can be a serious pain in the ass to deal with.

We were out in Mojave a few months ago. I can see the problems that environment causes.



posted on Nov, 29 2014 @ 12:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Being based out of L.A. in the 'Aurora' days, there was a series of seismic events, east of L.A. that caused people to call 9-11. These would occur, apparently, every second Thursday..


As quakes are of a high interest is SoCal., the seismologists were consulted. They reported that these events weren't earthquakes at all but 'hypersonic shockwaves'. The reporters asked if it was a shuttle. The reply was no. They had records of shuttle shock-wave 'patterns' and these ones where 'different' than the shuttle's.

The report speculated that the schedules of these 'flights' coincided with windows in Soviet/Russian satellite coverage over the region.

Therefore, in the slow process of elimination, it wasn't a shuttle and now Zaph-who would never blow smoke up our arses, cough, cough- has eliminated the Aurora, WTF was it??



posted on Nov, 29 2014 @ 12:48 PM
link   
a reply to: nwtrucker

I like the idea of the skyquakes but I've never seen a primary source, just lots of anecdotal evidence which tends to get exaggerated over time.

Also surely the idea that they were like clockwork can't be true. If it was someone could have just hiked Tikaboo on one of the second thursdays and taken some pretty pictures! If they were night flights they wouldn't have had to worry about overflights.
edit on 29/11/14 by gfad because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2014 @ 12:55 PM
link   
Your alternative explanation for the 'doughnuts on a rope contrail' is less persuasive than the general view that it is a phenomenon caused by a pulsed detonation engine. In this context, I recall a highly unusual experience some years ago.
I live in the United Kingdom, roughly in the centre of the country. One day in summer I was outside by my kitchen door wheN I heard a succession of loud explosions coming from the sky. I looked upwards but could not see anything that could be causing them. The explosions occurred at regular intervals. I think I heard a total of perhaps six explosions/explosive detonations during which time the source of the explosions had traversed the sky from horizon to horizon travelling south to north. I assumed the source of the explosions was some kind of aircraft, flying too high to be seen. It was travelling at a phenomenal speed, yet their was no sonic boom. I rather think that what I heard was a an aircraft using a pulsed detonation-type propulsion system.
a reply to: paranormal78



posted on Nov, 29 2014 @ 12:55 PM
link   
a reply to: gfad

I see what your saying. It was good enough to hit the L.A. Times..

Apparently, the energy generated is sufficient to be recorded by the seismic sensors and be mistaken for tremblers by the locals. If your building starts shaking/vibrating, it might be easy to assume it ground based. There were hundreds of 9-11 calls, if I recall correctly....



posted on Nov, 29 2014 @ 12:58 PM
link   
a reply to: gfad

Actually, it was almost always circa 7:30 A.M., every second Thursday...or was it every Thurs.? I'm getting old..No, if memory serves, every second Thurs.. Specifically, Riverside county.



posted on Nov, 29 2014 @ 01:06 PM
link   
a reply to: ciscoagent

I and several other people here on ATS have seen donuts on a rope contrails left by commercial aircraft. Normal contrails acted on by atmospheric forces makes a lot more sense than a PDE, flying low enough to leave contrails, and be easily seen during the day.



posted on Nov, 29 2014 @ 03:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: gfad
a reply to: nwtrucker

I like the idea of the skyquakes but I've never seen a primary source, just lots of anecdotal evidence which tends to get exaggerated over time.

Also surely the idea that they were like clockwork can't be true. If it was someone could have just hiked Tikaboo on one of the second thursdays and taken some pretty pictures! If they were night flights they wouldn't have had to worry about overflights.


There was a Scientific Paper published on the phenomenon out of one the Universities in California. Google around, I know I read it one time.

There being a window to fly within Russia is interesting, though, if this platform traveled at above/or Mach 4, it really doesn't need a window to fly.

Any reason it didn't leave a "sound trail" from the coast to the base it landed at?

Looking at possible flight path, it had to be flying parallel to the coast and making its bank turn into A51, if that is where it landed. We know now that the SR-71 had a really large turning radius and this would be no different. It probably started making its turn south of LA over Joshua Tree National Park to south of Kingman than over Lake Mead/Grand Canyon into A51 landing north???

Anybody else like to confirm or chime in??
edit on 29-11-2014 by themadgenius because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-11-2014 by themadgenius because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2014 @ 06:59 PM
link   
a reply to: themadgenius

A good read! authors.library.caltech.edu...



posted on Nov, 29 2014 @ 07:07 PM
link   
Interesting that the "mystery booms" are all double!



posted on Nov, 29 2014 @ 07:13 PM
link   
a reply to: themadgenius

Generally the aircraft will take off at a time that allows the best photo resolution possible at the target area. That could be during daytime hours, or it could be at night, depending on what they're looking for. Usually they'll try to take off when there's the least chance of being seen.
edit on 11/29/2014 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2014 @ 07:34 PM
link   
Aurora again?!?! Sheesh. It was a fun diversion tactic at the time. But all vaporware.

As for the large JP-7 purchase, JP-7 is only a "means to an end", just a push to get the the right height, then the "special green juice" switch is flipped. And as for the lack of sonic booms or sky quakes, the explanation is quite easy if you understand thermodynamics and how energy responds when it hits differing pressure layers.



posted on Nov, 29 2014 @ 07:42 PM
link   
a reply to: Krakatoa

And it proves that, contrary to what is being said, that there is something out there that requires JP7, which is a specialized fuel with limited uses.



posted on Nov, 29 2014 @ 07:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Krakatoa

And it proves that, contrary to what is being said, that there is something out there that requires JP7, which is a specialized fuel with limited uses.


You could be right. But, how would I know anything about that. I'm just a member of a conspiracy themed discussion group.



posted on Nov, 29 2014 @ 08:02 PM
link   
Well, at least some of the Green Lady's secret lingerie is slowly going public.



posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 12:23 PM
link   
So a good read of the CalTech "Mystery Sonic Booms" paper (authors.library.caltech.edu...) I'm just left with more questions than before!!

There's several intereting things to take from the paper though, the most important being that they conclude that the sonic booms over LA on Thursday mornings in 91/92 were NOT due to overflights by a supersonic aircraft, but by a supersonic trajectory off the coast with the booms being blown in by wind.

However in previous conversations with people on here I was expecting to see double sonic booms for both the shuttle and te blackbird, and I thought this was due to the size of the aircraft creating a boom from the nose and tail. However the authors only see double booms for the shuttle flights, and not for the SR-71 which is unusual. Additionally they say these double booms aren't due to two sonic booms, but one where the upwards travelling boom is reflected off the upper atmosphere.

Finally I was pretty skeptical about people saying the mystery booms were as regular as clockwork every thursday morning or some such, but it looks like I was wrong, there was about one mystery boom a month or two, all of them about 7am. Interesting!! I wish I could have been on Tikaboo peak on a Thursday morning in 1992!!



posted on Nov, 30 2014 @ 12:28 PM
link   
a reply to: gfad

For most craft, like the SR-71 the double boom is too close to capture, even for seismographs. On a normal aircraft the time between booms is measured in milliseconds. The shuttle has a shape that is conducive to the booms being slightly farther apart making them more detectable.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join