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.


Low Slow Black Triangles and Aurora Replacement

page: 1

log in


posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 02:25 PM

BWB-LSV (Blended Wing Body - Low Speed Vehicle)

I think I have solved the low big black triangle “ufo”. I think I saw the above aircraft back in 2002. It was at night but looking at the wing formation at thinking of the light placement (the one I reported to NUFORC had five white lights, 1 in the center and two on each wing leading edge) I could see this aircraft having a nose light and 2 additional lights evenly spaced as a form of deception to keep the covert project under wraps.

“In November that year, Boeing announced that two examples were built and are planned to be flown in 2006.”

I think this is BS I think there are already operational airframes flying around the country.

I found more, that makes it more suspect that this thing has been around some time...

WRIGHT-PATTERSON AIR FORCE BASE, Ohio (AFPN) -- A new aircraft with the potential to get up to 30 percent better fuel mileage because of its unique flying-wing shape is being tested by the Air Force Research Laboratory and industry partners.

Scientists from Boeing Phantom Works, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and AFRL are collaborating on the unmanned research aircraft

The vehicles will be capable of low-speed, low-altitude test flights up to 138 mph and as high as 10,000 feet.

The prototype has been shipped to NASA’s Dryden Flight Research Center at Edwards AFB, Calif., where it will serve as a backup to Ship No. 2, which will be used for remotely piloted flight tests at Edwards.

RF(Notice the black op division of Boeing, NASA, DARPA being flown out of Edwards, low speed low altitude they all point to the black triangles being operational. And why are they releasing a Boeing Phantom project. They only do that once it has been through the cycle and if the program has already been compromised in some form.)

On a side not I think this is Aurora actually and not the X51.

Vtype posted this link to a picture of the “x51” but when I checked other known sources for the X-51 project they are no where close to the aircraft in this picture. The below picture is so super close to the aerial photo I once saw where Aurora was reported to be caught out in the open.

I posted an image of it back a while ago in another Aurora thread I will try and find ti and link it here

Posted by robertfenix, on May 26, 2005 at 13:32 GMT

thats not aurora. Its a neat little cad drawing, but Aurora does not use the faceted stealth of the F117.

Plus Aurora has a compound delta configuration and does not have pointed wingtips.

As well as Aurora is not powered by 6 conventional turbofan jets, but rather twin (hyper/pulse/ ramjets).

Aurora has a cockpit similar to the B2 with smooth flowing integration into the wing surface.

I found the sucessor to the "Aurora" project. Code named Falcon

Looks like they got $8MM with another $98MM already on the books for design implemention, pre production.

Aurora is not a hypersonic aircraft. Falcon is hypersonic, so already they have plans to phase out Aurora, which typically means we might hope in the next 2 to 3 years they might actually reveal "aurora" to the public.

[edit on 15-6-2006 by robertfenix]

[edit on 15-6-2006 by robertfenix]

[edit on 15-6-2006 by robertfenix]

[edit on 15-6-2006 by robertfenix]

posted on Jun, 15 2006 @ 05:08 PM
I would have to disagree. While a number of Black Triangle UFO sightings probably are secret government playtoys, not all are. It would be foolish to assume all black triangles are the same type of craft being reported. Various characteristics in the reported behavior of black triangles differs enough that we might be having different ohenomenon.

The above is a perfect example of why not all black triangles can be counted as secret test craft.

Not only that but there are numerous black triangle sightings back in the 1960's and 1950's, long before the aurora was a twinkle in some black project scientists eye.

Youre not the first person to come on here with the same theory of black triangles. There are numerous threads on here about just that.

posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 10:24 AM
"aurora" is not responsible for the black triangle sightings, it is a high altitude, high speed recon aircraft ment not to be seen. HARP.

I think the operational platform for the x-48 Blended Wing/Body is responsible for the low slow black triangle sightings.

I think 30% off ufo reports are total fabrications and an additional 60% are mis-identified.

posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 11:01 AM
I tend to agree with Skadi.

Yes, a good number of black triangle sightings could be black projects, especially when they exhibit normal flight characteristics. But once any of these reports claim that the craft hovered, shot off like a dart, simply disappeard, etc., its something else. A lot of these are described as moving very slowly, even under what the nominal stall speed would be for a craft its size indicating an exotic propulsion and control systems. That Hudson Valley report is one of the best I've seen in a long time. There is also the Illinios/St. Louis show in 1998 the one that all of the cops saw and followed. Big flap in 1998 Illinios and well documented.

Illinios Sightings

And hey! Its entirely possible that 99% of these unexplained triangle sightings are black projects. Its just that there are a decent percentage of them that do not act like what the X-48 would act like in the air.

[edit on 16-6-2006 by Lost_Mind]

[edit on 16-6-2006 by Lost_Mind]

posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 11:14 AM
Sorry but in no way does that ressemble the black triangles seen over Belgium in 1990.

posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 11:26 AM
Its possible. I think some hovering behavior could be a very large wing-frame flying away or towards the observer at a relatively low speed (~140 mph) at night. A real (imperfect) test would be to take black triangle observers out to a field to watch a night test flight of one of these things. They would know pretty quickly if it was the same thing or not. Now we just need to obtain a schedule somehow....

But a big question is why are these things so incredibly quiet? How does that jive with the jet plane theory? Super silent turbine engines?

[edit on 16-6-2006 by Ectoterrestrial]

posted on Jun, 16 2006 @ 04:38 PM
The ones seen over Belgium could out fly their top fighter jets. So you're talking more than 140 mph.

top topics


log in