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.

 

B-2 Spirit: I think I can Prove it came from Groom Lake

page: 1
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 08:50 AM
link   
I know this has been argued before. I'm also aware that many on ATS stand by the "Official Story" that the first B-2 flew from Palmdale to Edwards AFB in 1989.

However I have found evidence that Leads me to believe that this is another Government Lie! I also think I know why they lied. Please hear me out on this!

The contract for the B-2 was origionally sign between Nothrop and the US Air Force in 1981(Source). The say it's first flight was in July 1989. This would mean it took 8 Years to build 1 aircraft. Strange considering that the later aircraft only take about 4 years to build.

Second, Mark Farmer, a respected Black World researcher and Photo Journalist, who works with Bill Sweetman, who is a famous author, best known for books such as Aroura and Inside the Stealth Bomber, has reported seeing a scaled down B-2 over Groom Lake on several occasions.

Then I found this Quote:


Since that time, Groom Lake has undergone vast expansion, catering to the needs of testing the most advanced aircraft projects in the world. Forty-four years after it was created, Groom Lake has hosted flight testing of the aforementioned Lockheed U-2, the SR-71 Blackbird, the F-117 stealth fighter, Northrop's B-2 stealth bomber, the mysterious Aurora Project, and possibly even alien spacecraft.


On this Website: members.fortunecity.com...

Then there's this quote:

This is also where . . . Secret machines like the SR-71 Recon or Y12 Interceptor spy plane and the F-117 Stealth Fighter & B-2 Stealth Bomber.


From: www.qtm.net...

Here's A website that even has a picture of the B-2 on a runway at Groom Lake:
www.ufo-hyway.com...


The fallowing are Facts that I know, but not taken from the web:

* Groom Lake is a research and testing center for the most advance Aircraft in the military.

*The B-2 was concieved to be the most advanced bomber ever. It was born from a Top Secret Project known as Senior Ice.

* There are reported sighting of the B-2 from as earily as 1984, 4 years before it was supposedly finished being built.

It is my firm belief that the B-2 that people watch take off for Edwards AFB in 1989, was coming out of an Overhaul at Palmdale, CA. Yes, I'm aware that we have people here who have Worked for Northrop and the Air Force who say no B-2 flew before 1989. However, we are all aware that anyone with security clearance Knows fron the day they are handed their badge that there are some secrets they will never be allow to discuss! (No disrespect to anyone is intended here) The F-117 Pilots, for example origionally had to say they flew A-7's.

Tim

[edit on 3/7/2007 by Ghost01]




posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 09:11 AM
link   
I agree on the whole with your points. I think the B-2 was almost definately flown before its official first flight and the most likely site for that is at Groom Lake.

In fact this thread is very similar to one that I authored last year:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Unfortunately I really dont see any convincing evidence in your post. The two websites you quote appear to be homemade jobs and don't reference their material. Basically the websites can say anything, it doesnt have to be true.

Also the photo of the B-2s on the runway could still be genuine but not prove anything. All US aircraft are flown against the DYCOMS system at Area 51, basically a flying RCS evaluation system that uses foreign and immitation radars. The photo could be of the B-2s during their DYCOMS testing.

I do believe that the B-2 was flown before 1989; I just think its inconcievable that the most technologically advanced, expensive and stealthly aircraft ever made wouldn't have a few flights in secret first, at least to test its RCS and actual speed etc.

Unfortunately I don't think there is any evidence out in the public domain to back this view-point up, we'll probably have to wait a decade or two for that.



posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 10:55 AM
link   
This rumor was put to rest long ago.

I know people who built and flew the B-2. From their first-hand testimony, the B-2 made its first flight at Palmdale in 1989 exactly as described. It was not flown at Groom Lake first, even in scaled-down form. Don't equate the fact that it took a long time to get from initial contract to flight-test as "proof" that it flew secretly somewhere else.

Tim, none of your Internet sources cited in your original post are credible or even have a hint of evidence. Just because someone says they saw a "mini B-2" flying over Nevada doesn't mean anything. Lots of UAV designs have a similar planform. Also, the photo on one web site, identified as B-2s "on the runway at Area 51," was actually taken at Palmdale.

Can't we please let this rumor die?



posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 11:55 AM
link   


The contract for the B-2 was origionally sign between Nothrop and the US Air Force in 1981(Source). The say it's first flight was in July 1989. This would mean it took 8 Years to build 1 aircraft. Strange considering that the later aircraft only take about 4 years to build.


Nothing unusual in that Tim, in fact I think that is a remarkably quick turnaround for such a big and completely revolutionary bomber.

Once you have completed the R&D and constructed and developed your first aircraft, just banging out copies is a doddle.



posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shadowhawk
This rumor was put to rest long ago.

I know people who built and flew the B-2. From their first-hand testimony, the B-2 made its first flight at Palmdale in 1989 exactly as described. It was not flown at Groom Lake first, even in scaled-down form. Don't equate the fact that it took a long time to get from initial contract to flight-test as "proof" that it flew secretly somewhere else.

Can't we please let this rumor die?


These things come from the fact that the Official story doesn't make sense. If everything is exactlly as they claim it is, Why is so much about the B-2 still highly classified?

Sorry Shadowhawk, nothing personal! I just look at it like all the people in the military who say they know first hand that Aroura never existed. Cover stories are not something I take at face value.

Can you tell me why you think the Government was so Open and straight forward about a Special Access Program?
.

Tim



posted on Mar, 7 2007 @ 09:56 PM
link   
The "official story," as you put it makes perfect sense, especially to anyone who has had to deal with government procument programs.

The inside story matches the offical version perfectly, as well.

The reason much about the B-2 is still highly classified can be summed up in two words: National Security. The same is true for aspects of numerous other programs: F-117A, F-22, X-43A, etc.

I'm not sure I get your comment about "Aurora," but I don't think it existed either. There is no evidence it ever existed and there is plenty of circumstantial evidence that it didn't.

I also don't know what you mean when you ask: "Can you tell me why you think the Government was so open and straight forward about a Special Access Program?"

There are things about the B-2 that remain classified, but there is a surprisingly large amount of information about the aircraft that is not classified. It is expensive and impractical to maintain complete secrecy over a program of that scale.



posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 03:29 AM
link   
I think one point is to be made. During its construction the B2 was one of the most protected projects out there, however as a weapon it was meant to become public. The truth is that the B2 was built to never be used for its designated purpose, bomb the USSR.

The B2 when finished was to be public and scare the hell out of the US enemies...
It is also plausible that once the project was near completion the use of super secret test was no longer required. Remember that Blue Tacit proved many of the B2 engineering at Groom Lake...



posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 09:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shadowhawk
I'm not sure I get your comment about "Aurora," but I don't think it existed either. There is no evidence it ever existed and there is plenty of circumstantial evidence that it didn't.

I also don't know what you mean when you ask: "Can you tell me why you think the Government was so open and straight forward about a Special Access Program?"


Sure, with pleasure!

First the comment on Aroura: I was referring to the title of a book, written by Bill Sweetmen. It was to establish some of the Credentials of Mark Farmer, who helped Mr. Sweetmen gather some of the information he used to write that book.

Second, I'm suspisious of the US Air Force's account of the facts surrounding the history of the B-2 Program. The B-2 was concieved as the Advanced Technology Bomber (ATB). ATB was one of the most advanced weapon systems to be developed during the Cold War. Now, we know from history that the Arms race relied heavily on secreacy and deception. According to some sources, at the hight of the Cold War almost 1/3 of the US Defense Budget might have been allocated for classified R&D.

Now, The B-2 was created as a Special Access Program under the code name: Senior Ice. Special Access is a sub category of the classification TOP SECRET, that has it own custom security rules.

Given these facts, I find it strange that the Air Force would carry out the R&D phase of the B-2 Program so openly for the world to see. Flight testing is considered as a part of the R&D phase of the program, as it is used to confirm the predictions made in the engineering phase and to solve unforseen problems that may arise.

If you do you Research publically, the enemy can learn lessons from your mistakes and apply them to his own military.



It is expensive and impractical to maintain complete secrecy over a program of that scale.


Just wondering, what are you using to make this assertion?


They built 59 F-117A Nighthawks in complete secracy and brought them into the operation phase before they revieled ther existance.

There are only 21 B-2's, less then 1/2 as many aircraft.

Will you please explain why you think complete secracy is so impractical?

Tim



posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 10:50 AM
link   
Well, first of all, a book with a title like "AURORA: America's Secret Hypersonic Spyplane" won't buy anyone more credibility. Epecially now, all these lyears after publication, when there is still no evidence to support the existence of "Aurora." Mark and Bill are both great guys, but that book isn't something to hang their credentials on. Also, sightings of a "mini B-2 shaped aircraft" only suggest the possibility of an airplane with a similar planform and not necessarily connected to the B-2.

The configuration of the B-2 was kept secret as long as practical and no doubt caused the Soviets to expend a graet deal of effort trying to figure it out in the years before it went public.

I know what a Special Acess Program is. "Don't try to teach your gradnmother to suck eggs," as they used to say.

There was no reason not to test the B-2 "openly" as the configuration had been revelaed before the first flight. The airplane was not "sight sensitive" and could be operated in view of non-cleared personnel. The most important secrets of the B-2 are internal.

It is expensive and impractical to maintain complete secrecy over a program of that scale because it was an extremely large production program. The original procurement was intended to include 100 aircraft (later reduced to 21). The documentatiuon alone was phenomenal. This was not run like a "Skunk Works" type program with minimal oversight and paperwork. Secrecy costs a lot of money. Classified documents and hardware have to be accounted for, handled and stored under very specific regulations and in specializeed facilities.

The F-117A was first tested in secret and then made operational "secretly" some seven and six years before it was publicly unveiled. That didn't mean it was unknown to the public. In the years before the Defense Department announcement, the aviation press reported the Lockheed had produced a "stealth fighter," that "it was tested at Groom Lake," and that "50 to 70 of the aircraft were based at Tonopah Test Range." All of these things proved to be accurate. The actual designation (F-117) was even published at least a month before the official press release.

There was no reason to treat the B-2 program in such a covert manner. The Air Force Flight Test Center built a secure facilty for the B-2 at Edwards AFB, South Base. It was sufficently secure and eminently more practical than trying to test the airplane at a remote location.

Much of the preliminary work had already taken place at Groom lake using the TACIT BLUE demonstrator. Northrop chief test pilot Dick Thomas, who flew most of the TACIT BLUE fights, also developed the techniques for flying the B-2. He did this using the simulator so he got to "fly" the B-2 before the actual airplane was even completed. Dick was a good friend of mine and told me many stories about his work. I also knew people who were building the B-2 and shared in their anticipation as the date of first flight approached. It was a great day when the B-2 finally took wing at Palmdale, following in the tradition of so many other airplanes built at AF Plant 42.



posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 04:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shadowhawk
The configuration of the B-2 was kept secret as long as practical and no doubt caused the Soviets to expend a graet deal of effort trying to figure it out in the years before it went public.

There was no reason not to test the B-2 "openly" as the configuration had been revelaed before the first flight. The airplane was not "sight sensitive" and could be operated in view of non-cleared personnel. The most important secrets of the B-2 are internal.


Is this a LOGICAL Argument, or an EMOTIONAL Argument?


Are you aware that you have contradicted yourself here? If the design wasn't sight senseitive, Why spend so many years hiding it from the Russians at all?

Shadowhawk, I have a lot of respect for you! Your contrabutions to ATS are undeniable. However, I can't in good consious, allow you to Contradict yourself like this.

Pick One: Did they try to hide the B-2's configuration from the Russians, or was it Not Sight Sensitive, in which case it didn't matter if the Russians saw it. If the latter was the case, Hideing it would have been a pointless waste of money and resorces.

I'll concede ONLY when you Get rid of this SELF-CONTRADICTING Claim!

Respectfully,

Tim



posted on Mar, 8 2007 @ 05:22 PM
link   
Tim, there is nothing remotely respectful about your response.

Pay more attention to my posts. The devil is in the details.

The B-2 configuration was kept secret as long as practical. When it was no longer sight sensitive, it was unveiled to the public. Since it had been revealed to the public, there was no reason to test it at a remote location.

There is no contradiction.

More importantly, your original post in this thread resurrected a foolish theory that has long since been put to rest.



posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 05:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by Shadowhawk
Tim, there is nothing remotely respectful about your response.

Pay more attention to my posts. The devil is in the details.

The B-2 configuration was kept secret as long as practical. When it was no longer sight sensitive, it was unveiled to the public. Since it had been revealed to the public, there was no reason to test it at a remote location.

There is no contradiction.


Thank you for claring that up! I can be wrong.

I UNDERSTOOD what you were saying as: The B-2 was never sight-sensitive, but they hid it's configuration as lang as posible.

I'm far from perfect, but I was Never out to insault you. You asked ME to explain my question. I had no intent to be rude. That is how I work through logic when I solve problems. I wanted you to see how my thinking was Developing. I'm truely Sorry that you felt attacked by the way I choose to develop my thinking for you.


I lost you when the B-2 went from sight-sensitive, to Not sight-sensitive.

For the future, could you try to be a little more patient with people before going on the Attack?

Tim



posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 11:06 AM
link   
Fair enough, Tim. No hard feelings.

Prior to realease of the actual B-2 configuration, there was much specualtion about its shape. Most of it was wrong. I read a Russian article in the mid-1980s that included an illustration of a triangular airplane with a hint of forward fusealge and twin, inwardly-canted vertical fins. Testors made a model, based on the specualtion of John Andrews, of a very rounder triangle with no fins.

Finally (I don't recall the exact date, the Air Force released a fairly accurate artist's concept. It wasn't very detailed, but showed the general shape.

At the rollout ceremony for the first airframe, officials took great care to position the airplane so its exhaust decks would not be visible. It was placed in front of a hangar and the viewing stand was in front of the airplane, providing no view of the rear. Of course, they had "built a fortess without a roof." A friend of mine flew over the ceremony in a light aircraft and photographed it from directly over.. The pictures appeared in the next issue of Aviation Week & Space Technology magazine, revealing the exhaust area in great detail. After that, there was no real effort to hide the airplane, other than housing it in secure hangars at Palmdale and Edwards between test flights.



posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 11:41 AM
link   
At the roll out, wasnt the B-2 postioned behind a large star that was painted on the Ground.

This star design was formed by 5 black plan views of the B-2.

Trying to find a picture of it.

AJ



posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 12:44 PM
link   
Shadowhawk I'm just trying to wrap my . around how you know so many people that are connected to the B-2. I don't want you to get in trouble but honestly where do you live and how close are you to these people because all of them held positions that blow my mind when it comes the secrecy and amazing tech.

As for how you disspelled the Aurora. Would you hazard a guess then at the high number of sonic booms in the remote desert etc? I have my own doubts about the Aurora myself and its the plane that drew me to these forums in the first place but I don't deny that what ever was "cover up" or real something went on in that time frame.

Oh and did we establish that the B-2 never flew out of groom lake? or just that its first flight was palmdale?



posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 09:27 PM
link   
We established that the B-2 made its first flight from Palmdale to Edwards. It is also a known fact that the B-2 has flown at Groom Lake, but not necessarily that it ever landed there. It might have if there was a need.

We know it flew there. I saw it myself. Like the F-117A and F-22A, The B-2 was flown through the range at Groom to verify its RCS.

Let's just say I "live in the desert," Canada-EH. My career, avocation and hobbies all put me in a good position to meet and work with interesting people.

I haven't found any evidence to support the existence of an operational hypersonic aircraft (or even a Mach 3 aircraft beyond the SR-71). A particularly well-placed person has made comments regarding a one-of-a-kind (the second airframe never flew) demonstrator with such high-speed capability, but I have been unable to confirm anything.

As to sonic booms, I hear them almost every day. It gets considerabley less thrilling after the first few. Most are pretty standard. ironically, the least impressive I ever heard was from an SR-71. I would be considerably more skeptical about the "skyquakes" of the early 1990s, except for the fact that I experienced one myself. It felt like a freight train was coming through my house, unlike the sharp single or double booms I usually hear. I assumed it was an earthquake, as did many residents of Los Angeles, but seismograph systems detected no earth movement.

ajsr71, you are correct, the B-2 team had a star logo made out of B-2 planforms. I have the patch. It was a very clever design.



posted on Mar, 9 2007 @ 10:40 PM
link   
Any way you could scan in that patch so we could see it shadowhawk? For me since I'm a graphic designer that would be awesome. Its not the greatest profession when your aviation buff at heart but I still make time for it and will be getting recertified soon so I can get back in the air. Thanks though for the info I'm a naturally skeptical person so It helps to know a bit about the people I'm talking too.

P.S. If anyone ever needs anything aviation related designed or knows anyone with a need like that let me know EH!



posted on Mar, 10 2007 @ 02:17 PM
link   
Did Senior Peg fly out of Groom?



posted on Mar, 10 2007 @ 02:32 PM
link   
SENIOR PEG never flew. It was Lockheed's design in the competition for the Advanced Technology Bomber (ATB). Northrop won the competition with their design that eventaully became the B-2.

Lockheed did build a model for RCS testing. There is a good photo of the pole model in "F-117 Nighthawk Stealth Fighter Photo Scrapbook" by Yancy Mailes and Tony landis (Specialty Press, 2006). The book contains many good photos, but the text is a little weak and there are some egregious errors. At least it includes a photo of me, so it was worth shelling out the money to buy it.

[edit on 10-3-2007 by Shadowhawk]



posted on Mar, 10 2007 @ 02:37 PM
link   
Here it is



aj



new topics

top topics



 
2
<<   2 >>

log in

join