It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Aurora Aircraft Research Project

page: 6
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in


posted on Apr, 13 2005 @ 02:59 PM
Sorry for the double post, but I didn't want one huge post.

My personal thought on the aurora project is that it was killed during the Clinton era and the funds put to other projects. I believe that any aerial recon now is done by satellites and UAV's. I believe there may have even been a few auroras operational during Clinton's two terms, but not now.

While I believe all the black triangle sightings are genuine and that they are TOP SECRET projects, I don't believe they are spy planes. Clinton cut intel funding so much I'm positive he would have opted for sattelites over manned aircraft.

Looking at the Air Force's current mission, especially since 911, I believe the aircraft people are seeing are either hypersonic stealth bombers or supersonic transport aircraft. Advanced bombers go without saying. We have a need now more than ever to have a supersonic, stealth transport that can airdrop special forces teams in theater and to launch UAV's for intel gathering. The bulk of our recon work is performed by satellite, but there are times when intel is needed in real time, without waiting for the next satellite flyby. Why send a manned aircraft into hostile airspace for recon when you could send a supersonic stealth transport to launch UAV's from a safe distance?

At any rate, I'm looking for work in this project, so either reply with some assignments for me or u2u me. I'm willing to do just about anything to help the project. Having said that, let me now add a caveat. I won't give out any classified information because I have an active clearance. I'll do any research that is within the public domain, but I won't do anything that could be construed as espionage.

posted on Nov, 3 2008 @ 07:54 PM
I am resurfacing this project, to end it once and for all in the coming weeks, and officially stamp it as wrapped up. There will be a few things that I will be covering in the process and I welcome any and all fellow ATS Scholars to assist me, or even ATS members to help (via U2U -- or if you have some earth shattering data, to join back on the team.)

In the next few days I will be re-resolving some data which was provided earlier in this thread in the terms of the following:

  1. Establishing a full timeline, with verified claims either by external resources, first hand witnesses, or furthermore documented evidence. I will be stripping away counts which do not hold merrit or may be irrelevant to the project at hand.
  2. Eliminating and debunking now-known false or innacurate data, provided by all parties (this data was not knowingly false).
  3. Supplying various aspects for potential additional project heading -- if ever needed. (Linking the Aurora Project to potentially white, or grey current operations).
  4. Boiling down probabilities of the craft to a solid, and/or descrete percentage, this in turn should close the chapter on this aircraft.

The information and conclusions provided will be out of assistance of fellow ATSers who offer to help, older ATS threads which may have true or false information (use for both debunking, and/or reference), offline sources (book references will be provided, along with any authorized information), and online references from valid (considered) sources.

A shifted goal
Since solidly proving, or disproving that the craft in question (Aurora XST) absolutely does or does not exist, or that it absolutely has or has never existed is a bit outlandish, the primary focus of this project will be to condense all information, stripping out the most extreme information (that is either not possible, or likely of a percentile under 30%), providing more accurate information, and formulating a likely-hood of project existance (now or ever).

The primary goal is to constitute data, and accurate numbers which can be supported WITHOUT A DOUBT.

Please contact me if you have any information which you feel may be viable to reaching this goal, and I will discuss appropriate action with you, or your information.

I anticipate this project to see it's forever-end by the end of this month.


posted on Nov, 4 2008 @ 02:42 PM
Fixing Bad Data

In this post I'll break down posts which contain all bad - or mostly bad data, I am going to condense it into just one post, so information is all organized and easy to find (at least, as best that I can.)

Will start for now with bad PERSONAL ACCOUNT - Research Data.

reply to post by Shugo

No air traffic controls -- at least on a standpoint of any form of black operation would operate on a frequency at this level. In fact, most air channel frequencies are well over 800 MHz (most of the time) -- excluding normal air-to-traffic control, AWOS, and related frequencies (based around general public AIRPORTS).

Also, based on what was heard on this frequency -- it could possibly be interferance from another channel (possibly even a "prankster"), anyone who has a scanner will know that from time to time, especially on clear nights, scanners will pick up interference from walkie talkies nearby.

Since everything contained in the transmition is almost too open, and the fact that the frequency supplied is not in air force use, am marking as BAD data.

reply to post by machinegunjordan

In relation to:

Replied post (conversation):

Image is too distorted to accurately analyze, furthermore image has some internet history of circulation, and possibly even faked or hoax material, therefore am marking conversation as bad data, as there is no information which is scientifically accurate or otherwise valuble.

Am also marking the original post (608482) as bad data, the Gibson sighting (at least the image) was deemed as fake, and thus far no viable information has surfaced to support Gibson's claims otherwise. Will keep an open mind and work to be able to use the Gibson story as a viable accountable witness, but am going going to use supposed images especially.

It was deemed a while ago that the original picture of Gibson's sighting was in fact 3 F-111's refueling from a KC-135, and therefore the image is to be marked as fake, and a hoax (on the part of the author of the image -- not the poster).

More information to follow later.

posted on Nov, 7 2008 @ 03:35 PM
Idnetifying Possible Flaws / More Bad Data

Second sighting lacks evidence to support the claims of the number "2,950 people" (this post / 534025) will mark that report as spotty for now, since some of the data may very well be accurate, but the numbers are likely a guess.

The other two sightings reported in the post are *PUBLICLY* unable to be proven or disproven, I am trying not to be biased, since the first report was actually a personal account, but since I am open to the possability of it not being the craft in question, will mark it as moot for now.

Post: 534350 - Removing unlikely possabilities


"Darkstar" was given to a stealth-like UAV Project which first flew in 1996. Many know Darkstar as the RQ-3 or Tier III. This project was terminated in 1999 by the DoD because funding for the craft had run short.

It was a high-altitude endurance UAV -- unfortunately on it's second flight, the prototype crashed shortly after take off.

Since Darkstar was reported as aerodynamically unstable, and it's specifications do not even come close to meeting that of the supposed Aurora -- despite the possability of the RQ-3 having gone black, am marking this as unrelated, or moot information.

You can find more information about Darkstar and it's termination on


There is no available data to support that this code name has ever been used, or is in use, even amongst people who have been researching black projects. Therefore this is bad information.


Due to the development, and recent information presented by intelgurl in another thread located here referring to the SR-72 Blackswift Project, have opted to disregard the SR-91 designation.

Will be further analyzing the data with the SR-72 Project however, as some specifications of Blackswift are trending relatively close to the supposed specifications of the Aurora. Espcially in the speed and mission categories. Further research will be needed to confirm this.

Marking SR-91 for now as bad data, but will open up the door for the SR-72 as a possible designation while we're at it.

Post 541321

NASP (X-30)

Am going to mark this as a possible solution. I've covered this in detail a while ago (despite it being a rather one track thread), the data supplied within the linked thread is full of information and comparison charts:

Aurora XST and NASP

More information to follow later on.

[Edit to fix links]

[edit on 7.11.2008 by Shugo]

posted on Nov, 17 2008 @ 04:01 PM
An update on status.

In the coming week or so, we will be debunking the donuts on a rope contrail myth which surrounds most hypersonic aircraft, I have commissioned OzWeatherman to assist me with this aspect of the project.

I will also be accumulating all links which still work, with VALUBLE information only. Also will be accumulating posts on ATS with valuble eye-witness reports, and information, as well as related articles on the matter. This will establish a database of links to work with, and will help condense specs and FACT from FICTION. It will also ensure that our tinwiki entries are accurate as well in the meantime.

I would like to try and close this project by the end of the month, but unfortunately I only get driven into motivation on the weekdays (imagine that), at any rate, a few other conspiracy crackings have to occur before we are able to finally condense probabilities. Will also be doing a bit of compare and contrasting.

o/o - for now.

posted on Nov, 21 2008 @ 10:19 PM
Aurora Thread Calibaration

The following are links to threads which supply valuble data on ATS:

The Aurora Top-Secret Hypersonic Spy Plane
New Aurora evidence?
Aurora XST and NASP

These threads above, are listed based on credability (for sources), followed by user response, and relevance, as well as contribution to the cause of revealing any evidence which would support, or not support the existance of Aurora.

The following is a shortened list of Aurora related aircraft, which may be direct descendants, or related to the Aurora in some other way:

Most important thread: SR-72 Confirmed: Mach 6 Project Blackswift

The NASA Hyper-X Project

Summary of Evidence to Now

Unfortunately, due to resembling aircraft specifications (IE: Blackswift, X-30, X-43, and recent NASA DRC Vehicles, including U(C)AV's, the current outcome trend of this project is beginning to point towards Aurora's current existance as not. However, the concept may at one time have existed on paper.

Evidence was made available which indicated that the Aurora project was a name which was designed to the B-2A, Northrop's Stealth Bomber. Based on when the bomber first flew, and entered service, almost matches supposed timelines for Aurora's existance perfectly.

However, an unexplained issue arises, if it wasn't, or isn't Aurora, then what is it?

There are various concepts which could be used to explain the phenomina reported by the public and press alike. The most common idea is that typical sonic booms, those which are produced by aircraft cruising at supersonic or subsonic speeds, are being blown out of proportion.

Another possability, is that the SR-71's have in fact been in flight aside from public knowledge, however there is no evidence to support that the Blackbird is in flight over the areas which some of the reports have been given.

The last possability, aside from the term hoax, which I have hacked out of this project until this point, is that we are indeed dealing with a black project, capable of high speeds. The question then fades away from if or does Aurora exist, but to what this other black project is.


It should be flattened out as there is much confusing as to Aurora's roles, that Aurora's primary objective was Reconnaissance. A later theory was presented that it could possible be used for an Attack role, this concept was given the "speculative" designation of "XR-7" or "Thunderdart", while the Recon version was commonly called the "SR-72" or "SR-91" (91 -- no reason as to why 20 designations were skipped.) An additional designation of "SR-75" was also presented (75 -- again, no reason as to why 4 designations were skipped.)

An issue which exists with the Thunderdart is there is much less factual data to support it at this time. Furthermore, the designation of XR, which has been provided continues to represent that the craft is designed for reconnaissance operations, and not attacking.

All provided designations, excluding the F-13, which was supposedly not used due to suspicious beliefs, point towards Aurora having only one single role, which is to run on high-altitude reconnaissance operations. Likewise, there is no evidence to support that Aurora is a weapon capable craft if it does in fact exist, excluding the history of the SR-71, and the YF-12.

Wrap up

This project is nearing it's end, and in the coming few days it will be ended. A few more details will be debunked and upon that being completed, the project will be concluded. However, I am ready to present that despite the fact if Aurora did exist at one time, it does not exist now, in it's original form.

A guess based off of evidence around with craft which are in fact flying today, would suggest that the likelyhood of the original hypersonic Aurora concept in-flight, being less than 5%.

Attached below are references regarding data provided in this post.

Maiden Flight: May be mid 1989
Introduced: May be Early 1990s, late 1980s
Many believe that the Aurora's top speed could be anywhere between Mach 6-20

The SR-72 is supposedly a hypersonic Unmanned Combat Aerial Vehicle (UCAV) capable of acheiving speeds of up to Mach 6 and capable of altitudes up to 100,000ft.

Back in the 1980's during the Reagan administration plans were announced for a new Orient Express, which amounted to a plane that would take off and land like a normal aircraft, but cruise at Mach 25 making runs into low Earth orbit as it went from Dulles airport to Tokyo in two hours.
The new hypersonic project, dubbed Blackswift, shares the same take off and land normally approach. It aims for a more achievable speed of a Mach 6.

Systems of Designation

Additional sources will be provided in another post tomorrow, followed by additional break-it-down sources Tuesday or Wednesday.

[Edited for punctuation and typo]

[edit on 22.11.2008 by Shugo]

posted on Nov, 23 2008 @ 08:03 PM
Additional references and information

Relating to the tinwiki post linked in the previous post:

The chairman of Lockheed has been quoted saying: "Yes, there is an Aurora, however I believe that was the codename for the Northrop B-2A Spirit, wasn't it?"

When speaking about "Aurora" in this context, in this case with a Lockheed chairman, a safe assumption is that the craft which s/he has been speaking about is the Canadian CP-140 Aurora, which Lockheed developed, based on the P-3 Orion.

In addition, the existance of CP-140 Aurora, automatically rules out that "Aurora" is in fact the title of any said craft, thus meaning the craft would have to be codeced as "Aurora II", unless it was an operative codename, but again later in the statement is that the codename was used for the B-2A project with Northrop.

Since the B-2 was a black project, and the title Aurora was listed as a black project, it is possible that this has in fact been the case all along. The time the documents were leaked, cooresponds with the timeline that the "Aurora (B-2)" was developed.

This being said, the Aurora title on the black budget is being declaired as debunked, and is no longer supporting evidence that Aurora does or did exist.

posted on Nov, 29 2008 @ 07:51 PM
For referral purposes I have included the following links and information about alternative projects which resemble Aurora's specifications and goals. I will post wikipedia entries at the end, I am going to warn all persons that for the sake of the AARP that wikipedia is not a credible resource tool as it is able to be edited by both unregistered and registered users on a simple CAPTCHA basis. Therefore, some data within those entries may not be truth.

Before we look at these other aircraft, I would like to take a moment to discredit the idea of "sonic booms", a phenomina which people frequently attribute to the flight of hypersonic aircraft.

To your left, you will see a picture, a well known picture as a matter in fact, that is of an F/A-18C with a vapor cone around it. This vapor cone, and the approximate speed of the aircraft are components in what is frequently called a "sonic boom", the very same term that we use to classify an aircraft overhead.

The question some people ask at this point, is what exactly causes the sonic boom. The wikipedia article as well as a few others happen to clear it up very nicely, and in fact do indicate the components, cause, and effects of the common sonic boom. Actual sonic booms are not created until an object has met or exceeded Mach 1, 761 MPH, or 1,225 KMH.

When an object passes through the air, it creates a series of pressure waves in front of it and behind it, similar to the bow and stern waves created by a boat. These waves travel at the speed of sound, and as the speed of the object increases, the waves are forced together, or compressed, because they cannot "get out of the way" of each other, eventually merging into a single shock wave at the speed of sound.

Furthermore, the article continues to say:

The power, or volume, of the shock wave is dependent on the quantity of air that is being accelerated, and thus the size and shape of the aircraft. As the aircraft increases speed the shocks grow "tighter" around the craft and do not become much "louder". At very high speeds and altitudes the cone does not intersect the ground and no boom is heard.

Wikipedia : Sonic Boom
Live Science : What is a Sonic Boom?

As presented, factors come into play.
The presence of a sonic boom does not give a valid indication that a hypersonic or high-supersonic aircraft has been present.

Furthermore, wind can budge soundwaves, depending on wind speed and direction, incidents such as the Florida 2005 incident as quoted on TinWiki can occur if there are multiple flights in the vicinity, or area. Therefore, the sonic boom theory is no longer a valid indication that an aircraft of Aurora's or any other hypersonic's calibur has been present. It simply means that an aircraft has flown overhead.

Related Aircraft, Original Aurora Concept Evolved?
The last two segments of this research project are to check the following:

  1. To investigate if Aurora (II) ever has existed off of paper (I.E.: Flown/been airborne, prototype built).
  2. If not A, investigate or estimate (based on educated resources) how far the project get.
  3. To assess if the project has evolved into a new hypersonic or reconnaissance aircraft.

hypersonic speeds are speeds that are highly supersonic. Since the 1970s, the term has generally been assumed to refer to speeds of Mach 5 (5 times the speed of sound) and above.

Credit: Wikipedia

We've already covered earlier in this project, exactly what Aurora's specifications are believed to be. We also know what Aurora's shape and supposed dimensions are (despite there being 2 arguments). Using the specifications and dimensions supplied, we can safely make an educated guess as to what aircraft could have come from the original Aurora concept, or may possibly even BE what Aurora is now (or perhaps even was).

It has been concluded that the original Aurora concept no longer does exist, however it has also been stated that Aurora's specs (starting) and dimensions resemble two aircraft in particular, including one white-world project Codename: Hyper-X or X-43A, under testing with NASA at the Dryden Test Research Center at Edwards Air Force Base in California (where many sonic booms have been heard in the past, aside from Nellis Air Force base, and the Tanopah Test Range north of Las Vegas, Nevada).

The other aircraft is the former white-world project SR-72 Blackswift under the FALCON program. A third aircraft, which was briefly discussed in this project was the X-30 NASP project, which was supposedly canceled and may have potentially gone black in the 1990's.

The HTV-3X computer model, which was released by DARPA, and would have been developed (white-world) by Lockheed Martin's Skunk Works (also known in the Falcon Project), resembles Aurora characteristics.

This is just one of the frames in a video, a simulation if you will, of the project. (HTV-3X)

The Falcon program objectives are to develop and demonstrate hypersonic technologies that will enable prompt global reach missions. This capability is envisioned to entail a reusable Hypersonic Cruise Vehicle (HCV) capable of delivering 12,000 pounds of payload at a distance of 9,000 nautical miles from CONUS in less than two hours.

Right from DARPA themselves

Additional Projects include the Hypersoar program, which was supposedly the project which would have unveiled the B-3 Project:

A HyperSoar hypersonic Global Range Recce/Strike Aircraft the size of a B-52 could take off from the US and deliver its payload to any point on the globe - from an altitude and at a speed that would challenge current defensive measures - and return to the US without the need for refueling or forward bases on foreign soil. Equipment and personnel could also be transported.
HyperSoar could fly at approximately 6,700 mph (Mach 10), while carrying roughly twice the payload of subsonic aircraft of the same takeoff weight.

Source: FAS

[edit on 29.11.2008 by Shugo]

posted on Dec, 6 2008 @ 01:18 AM
Just an update on this project, I am having someone look into a few additional matters, such as the "donuts-on-a-rope" contrail story that is frequently used. Unfortunately Oz is unavailable until mid-month. So will have to patiently wait for him at the moment. Will proceed again in a week or so.

Just an update so everyone knows what is going on with the project as of this moment.

posted on Dec, 16 2008 @ 06:58 PM
So, Im assuming we all know how a contrail is made, am I right with that?

Suprisingly after investigating it for a while, I havent come up with to much information about how donut-on-a-rope contrails are formed. Most the information is purely an edcuated guess and speculatory, and doesnt seem restricted to the alleged aurora aircraft. I will admit however, nobody has any evidence that points to the identitification of a plane causing these contrails

The below images are apparently from a guy who photographed an unidentified plane flying east to west, creating a donut-on-a-rope contrail. He did however say that he was unable to determine whether or not the aircraft was a normal passenger plane or military aircraft. The time frame of the photos was taken over a 2 minute period

Sorry had to post the links due to photos being copywrited

He also added the following statement

For myself, I do not believe PDWE-powered aircraft were responsible for either of the contrails I observed. First, it seems unlikely to me that a secret aircraft would be flown over a large city in broad daylight, especially twice in one afternoon. Second, I heard no remarkable sounds before, or during, my observation of these contrails. Third, and most significantly, the photograph of the origin of the contrail shows that the contrail begins as two separate trails, each one presumably from the jet engines on either side of a commercial airliner. I can only speculate that atmospheric conditions, combined with the air turbulence produced by the aircraft, conspired to merge the two trails into one, and to disturb it at regular intervals, perhaps as a wake vortex periodically intersected the trail.

Will dig a bit deeper to see if there is a scientific theory for the cause of the donu on a rope phenomena.

posted on Dec, 22 2008 @ 11:29 AM

Have a few corrections to make to some additional posts, as well as waiting on what additional is being added in the contrail area. Am updating the project in order to notify people that the project is still set to be ended by the end of the month, and that we are still continuing to work on it, despite the "public lull" which seems apparent.

top topics

<< 3  4  5   >>

log in