Aurora - a Famous Speculative Project

Scott Kenny said:
If the C-5Cs are kept in a hangar when not in use (unlikely, I know), they can have visible external modifications.

Also, depending on just how significant those modifications are, some careful countershading painting can help hide them from distant viewers.
Click to expand...

Supposedly the modifications included extra landing gear and "chipmunk cheek" extensions to the main cargo area, i.e. giant bulging sides on the aircraft to accommodate larger cargo.

Supposedly. Strangely, no one has actually seen a C-5C with these modifications.
 
quellish said:
Supposedly the modifications included extra landing gear and "chipmunk cheek" extensions to the main cargo area, i.e. giant bulging sides on the aircraft to accommodate larger cargo.

Supposedly. Strangely, no one has actually seen a C-5C with these modifications.
Click to expand...
Why do I think someone saw an An124 and refused to believe that the US was using a Russian airplane?
 
Both 68-213 and 68-216 (the only known C-5Cs) were C-5A's converted in 1988 to C-5C's. Both are based at Travis AFB and used for special cargo delivery (i.e. transport satellites, oversized cargo, etc.). There are known photos of these on the web.
 
quellish said:
Supposedly the modifications included extra landing gear and "chipmunk cheek" extensions to the main cargo area, i.e. giant bulging sides on the aircraft to accommodate larger cargo.

Supposedly. Strangely, no one has actually seen a C-5C with these modifications.
Click to expand...
The C-5C does not have those modifications.
Nor does any C-5 have them.
 
Both 68-213 and 68-216 (the only known C-5Cs) were C-5A's converted in 1988 to C-5C's. Both are based at Travis AFB and used for special cargo delivery (i.e. transport satellites, oversized cargo, etc.). There are known photos of these on the web.
Click to expand...
And on SPF, here and here. A trained eye can discern the bifold main aft doors of the C-5C when open; you'll need good light and a keen eye to chase the panel lines when the doors are closed.
 
Other spacecraft containers used the C-5C, the 3rd is the SCTS container
 

Attachments

  • MUOS SV4 leaving Sunnyvale 229 blurred.jpg
    MUOS SV4 leaving Sunnyvale 229 blurred.jpg
    1.2 MB · Views: 95
  • Webb_Telescope_STTARS_Container_loaded_onto_C5_for_Shipping_to_NASA_JSC-IMAGE-ONLY.00001_print.jpg
    Webb_Telescope_STTARS_Container_loaded_onto_C5_for_Shipping_to_NASA_JSC-IMAGE-ONLY.00001_print.jpg
    76.3 KB · Views: 40
  • ksc97pc923.jpg
    ksc97pc923.jpg
    272.8 KB · Views: 103
Byeman said:
The C-5C does not have those modifications.
Nor does any C-5 have them.
Click to expand...

I am not saying they did - in fact, a number of times I have pointed out that the "chipmunk" C-5s are a myth. The first (possible) mention of this mythical C-5 or the use of the C-5Cs for aircraft SAPs is the CAQ article I quoted, which attributes John Andrews of Testors as the source.
 
quellish said:
I have pointed out that the "chipmunk" C-5s are a myth.
Click to expand...
A C-5 looks like a chipmunk anyway. What comes out of a verbal description can depend on the interaction with the interviewer. For example:

Witness: 'A very big fat plane with bulging cheeks like a chipmunk.'

Interviewer (overanalysing what they've heard): 'Ah, if its very big, it's not a C-141, and must be a C-5. And bulging sides you say? It must be modified...'

*Ahem* quoting myself,


Interesting. I saw somewhere a photo of cocooned U-2s in storage and the light-coloured fabric stretched from the nose to the intakes gave the appearance of 'rounded chines'. A fuselage being shipped would match the description too.

Another scratch at the bottom of the barrel of my memory brings up a quote from Dwayne Day, I think - 'The Blind Men at the Zoo'. Reversing the parable of the blind men and the elephant who each describe a different animal, they examine many different animals and think that they're the same one.

Brilliant_Buzzard_AWST_24_Aug_1992-2_red.jpg

As an old Scots proverb has it, what may be may not be.

Here's the Day article from 2006 (unusually, laid out as three pages, remember to click at the bottom to read the full article):


One or two details may be outdated now but overall it's a description of a perfect storm of lack of corroboration, overanalysis, and conflation all wrapped up in confirmation bias.
 
Last edited:
Whisperstream said:
All I have is Carpenter's testimony, which I have no reason to doubt. I haven't found any documentation specifically describing AURORA as a reconnaissance program, or any program details at all. Appendix E of "Future Years Defense Program (FYDP) Structure," DoD 7045.7-H, dated April 2004, lists AURORA (PE 0101119F) with "none" under Description and (H) following the program name to indicate that it is "historic" rather than active.
Click to expand...
Link to it: FUTURE YEARS DEFENSE PROGRAM (FYDP) STRUCTURE https://www.acqnotes.com/Attachments/DoD 70450.7H FYDP Structure.pdf

Interestingly, this document also mentions Senior Citizen. An website named "The Black Vault" talked about this document too.
 
Ninja said:
Link to it: FUTURE YEARS DEFENSE PROGRAM (FYDP) STRUCTURE https://www.acqnotes.com/Attachments/DoD 70450.7H FYDP Structure.pdf

Interestingly, this document also mentions Senior Citizen. An website named "The Black Vault" talked about this document too.
Click to expand...

Yes,. the FYDP Structure documents list (some) Program Element (PE) codes (not all of them). The (H) following the PE code line indicates it is historical, i.e. the program elements has not been active for quite some time. Often, but not always, when listed in the FYDP Structure documents the PE codes are updated to the PE code format that is valid for the year the document was published.

The Black Vault has requested documents for SENIOR CITIZEN and other programs through FOIA. IIRC they have generally gotten a response of no records found - more often than not this is a case of the request went to an organization that did not have relevant records.
 
Ninja said:
Found these online. Looks like Aurora to me but I've been having trouble finding the studies these belong to. The second image was featured in Bill Sweetman's Aurora book.

Link to where I found the first image: https://www.aerospaceprojectsreview.com/blog/?p=740
Click to expand...
I know now the fist image I posted belonged to INCAAPS, but can anyone find the source to the second one? I did an reverse-image search and the only result was from the website in which I found it in. Also with all the years having gone by, im surprised to not see any hints (the Lockheed tweet from a few months back could be it, idk) at a direct hypersonic SR-71 replacement (not even a patch or challenge coin). Me and my teacher once we're talking about Aurora, and who would be good pilots to recruit for testing? Me and him thought Blackbird pilots would be the best choice since they have experience in fast aircraft. Also, lets say if Aurora was definitely real, what are some good reasons for it still being classified?

Cheers
 

Attachments

  • landing1l.jpg
    landing1l.jpg
    34.9 KB · Views: 104
  • IMG_3503.jpg
    IMG_3503.jpg
    1.2 MB · Views: 102
Ninja said:
Found the first Aurora mention in a government website, alongside other Area 51 shenanigans, lol.
Click to expand...
"Aegis" and "AEO (aka Anomalous Aerial Objects)" listed twice?

What the heck is Aegis in relation to UFOs/Paranormal stuff, anyways? (The only version I know of is from the Conspiracy X RPG, where Aegis is the entity that the PC's work for)
 
Scott Kenny said:
"Aegis" and "AEO (aka Anomalous Aerial Objects)" listed twice?

What the heck is Aegis in relation to UFOs/Paranormal stuff, anyways? (The only version I know of is from the Conspiracy X RPG, where Aegis is the entity that the PC's work for)
Click to expand...
It mentions other weird stuff such as animal mutilations, hangar 18 (out of all hangars), Artic(h)oke, which I got no idea why the H is in parentheses or what it's even refering to. It even mentions MK Ultra and Fastwalkers...this is one funky government webpage.
 
Ninja said:
It mentions other weird stuff such as animal mutilations, hangar 18 (out of all hangars), Artic(h)oke, which I got no idea why the H is in parentheses or what it's even refering to. It even mentions MK Ultra and Fastwalkers...this is one funky government webpage.
Click to expand...
IIRC that's supposed to be some F-117 like aircraft but with a lot more spikes on the back.
 
Scott Kenny said:
IIRC that's supposed to be some F-117 like aircraft but with a lot more spikes on the back.
Click to expand...
Im aware of it but I didn't thought it would be refering to that. Compared to Aurora, it's pretty minor and obscure. Another reason why I thought it wasn't refering to the F117-like plane was because of the H being in parentheses.
 
Oh wow! It even mentions Foo Fighters! In the more serious sides of things (as serious as that page can get), the page also mentions Snow Bird, Senior Citizen, and Saint. Saint I have no idea what it is.
 
Ninja said:
It mentions other weird stuff such as animal mutilations, hangar 18 (out of all hangars), Artic(h)oke, which I got no idea why the H is in parentheses or what it's even refering to. It even mentions MK Ultra and Fastwalkers...this is one funky government webpage.
Click to expand...

This is a list of topics people have filed FOIAs for with NSA that had no records found.
"Hangar 18" was the mythical hangar at Wright Patterson AFB where aliens/alien technology was kept. At least, until Bill Lear and later Bob Lazar later turned attention to Groom Lake.
 
Last edited:
Bob Lazar did mentioned about seeing the SR-91 Aurora taking off one night at Area 51, saying that the noise it made was like the sky ripping apart. But there is a catch to his sighting. There are different airframes of the Aurora(in the Aurora program), so there might be a case that the Aurora he saw wasn't the original Aurora but a different one.
 
Ninja said:
Oh wow! It even mentions Foo Fighters! In the more serious sides of things (as serious as that page can get), the page also mentions Snow Bird, Senior Citizen, and Saint. Saint I have no idea what it is.
Click to expand...
The SAINT I know of is a SAtellite INTerceptor. Mission for Dyna-Soar etc.
 
quellish said:
This is a list of topics people have filed FOIAs for with NSA that had no records found.
"Hangar 18" was the mythical hangar at Wright Patterson AFB where aliens/alien technology was kept. At least, until Bill Lear and later Bob Lazar later turned attention to Groom Lake.
Click to expand...
Because NSA has nothing to do with aircraft or spacecraft. They just receive the take. Other organizations (NRO, USAF, Navy, etc) get them the data and develop the conveyances that gather the data.
 
Ninja said:
The F22 took its first flight in 1997. The skyquakes were from 1991-1993. Also the Blackbird was retired by then, AND was confirmed to not be flying those days. Also F-16's cannot continously produce sonic booms as the ones described over LA.
Click to expand...
I would say that whatever produced the skyquakes is likely connected to whatever was performing late night, extended, loud, rumbling takeoffs, presumedly from Edwards AFB that we were hearing 40-50 miles away in high desert towns like Victorville, Hesperia, Adelanto, Apple Valley, Oro Grande, Pearblossom and Phelan. You could follow whatever it was as it moved across the sky, but nothing was seen by anyone else I know who lived in that area.

And I will note that this was after George AFB had ceased flight operations all aircraft transferred away and the airfield closed.
 
Ninja said:
Is there a possibility other countries know about Aurora or what it is? Dont know how often adversaries spy on each other's planes though.
Click to expand...
Well, Russia, China and North Korea all filed diplomatic complaints about US overflights of their territory by SOMETHING during the years Aurora is said to have been active. And Reagan did lift the overflight ban put in place by Eisenhower for some reason.

So it stands to reason they knew enough about Aurora to be able to determine that radar tracks of unknown, high-flying, very high-speed targets and sonic booms had a likely source.
 
Scott Kenny said:
Hiding the construction would require some technology that turns dirt and rocks into vapor at the point of excavation. And such technology doesn't exist in the white world at all.

Because conventional digging techniques require you to move all that dirt and put it somewhere. There has been no signs of such massive earth moving in any satellite footage of Groom Lake, from any source.

Basic engineering principles say that you need to remove enough dirt to equal the weight of whatever you're constructing.
Click to expand...
So we finally have an explanation about those nuclear-powered underground tunneling machines (subterreans?) the Air Force allegedly had back in the 80s?;)
 
RetiredAFGuy said:
Well, Russia, China and North Korea all filed diplomatic complaints about US overflights of their territory by SOMETHING during the years Aurora is said to have been active. And Reagan did lift the overflight ban put in place by Eisenhower for some reason.

So it stands to reason they knew enough about Aurora to be able to determine that radar tracks of unknown, high-flying, very high-speed targets and sonic booms had a likely source.
Click to expand...
Mind sending some proof or links?
 
RetiredAFGuy said:
Well, Russia, China and North Korea all filed diplomatic complaints about US overflights of their territory by SOMETHING during the years Aurora is said to have been active. And Reagan did lift the overflight ban put in place by Eisenhower for some reason.

So it stands to reason they knew enough about Aurora to be able to determine that radar tracks of unknown, high-flying, very high-speed targets and sonic booms had a likely source.
Click to expand...
Could you provide a URL link (website link) to something that elucidates on this Ronald Reagan lifting the Russian reconnaissance overflight ban? Where was this seen? What news organization/periodical/blog said this? I want to read this directly, if at all possible....
 
greenmartian2017 said:
Could you provide a URL link (website link) to something that elucidates on this Ronald Reagan lifting the Russian reconnaissance overflight ban? Where was this seen? What news organization/periodical/blog said this? I want to read this directly, if at all possible....
Click to expand...

“Websites” and “blogs” were not really popular during the Reagan administration
 
quellish said:
“Websites” and “blogs” were not really popular during the Reagan administration
Click to expand...
OK, but I still want to know the original source of this claim that Reagan lifted the Russian reconnaissance overflight ban. If it's stated, it has to have an original source. Also, even though in the 1980s there wasn't websites and blogs operational, there may have been a website or a blog more recently that made this claim. So my request still holds.
 
greenmartian2017 said:
OK, but I still want to know the original source of this claim that Reagan lifted the Russian reconnaissance overflight ban. If it's stated, it has to have an original source. Also, even though in the 1980s there wasn't websites and blogs operational, there may have been a website or a blog more recently that made this claim. So my request still holds.
Click to expand...
More to the point, there should be an Executive Order or Presidential Memo stating this.
 
I'm surprised to see no patch for any hypersonic air force plane/program pop up on ebay, considering other weird and obscure patches have washed up there :p
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom