Flying Magazine Photographs Evidence of Aurora Aircraft?

TheFlyingTurkey

Fetus Worshiper
http://www.flyingmag.com/pilots-pla...2&spJobID=194458525&spReportId=MTk0NDU4NTI1S0

By Robert Goyer / Published: Feb 16, 2012
Contrails_Big.jpg
Last week Flying photographed Aurora, or at least what looks to be strong evidence of Aurora, the much rumored, never-acknowledged U.S. military spyplane.
I snapped the pic not because I thought I was catching a peek at Aurora but because I thought the contrail was evidence of some strange meteorological phenomenon. The contrail was odd indeed, as you can see here, with a scalloped edge and a smooth edge with a well defined margin at the several-hundred-mile long path. I wondered if the contrail was situated exactly on the edge of a line of wind shear — after all, why else would only one side of the contrail be blown out? In an earlier Facebook post I postulated that the contrail was at around 40,000 feet, the altitude around which most transcontinental flights would fly, but I was probably flat-out wrong. If it was indeed an Aurora spotting, and it likely was, then the altitude in question might as easily have been 200,000 feet, an altitude that would put it well above the range of conventional missiles.
There’s been much speculation about Aurora, much of it promulgated by respected aviation journalist Bill Sweetman, who has scoured DoD budgets for signs of hidden projects and found billions of hidden outlays to pique his interest. Aurora, it is speculated, is powered by a pulse detonation wave engine of some kind, most likely using some form of liquid fuel, perhaps hydrogen, to power its engines. The unusual scalloped formations on the contrail, which are difficult to reconcile with any known weather phenomena, are almost certainly the result of some kind of detonation engine, such as NASA has publicly discussed flying in recent years.
After the Air Force revealed the existence of the SR71, it’s hard to argue that Aurora (or whatever the military is actually calling it) is a fantasy. Indeed, the argument could be made that Aurora, which has been speculated upon for more than a decade now, will be fully disclosed by the military before too long, but probably not before it has a replacement well along in development if not already flying.
 
The contrail in the picture doesn't seem too out of the ordinary as I've seen them like this before. Maybe I caught a glimpse of Aurora?!?!? Yeah, probably not.
 
It's the super secret chemtrail aurora spy plane. That would need to be one heck of a zoom lense to capture a contrail at fl2000. Can contrails exist that high?
 
I guess I thought it was interesting that a respected publication like Flying was posting photos of "Aurora". Never mind I guess.
 
A lot of planes are known to make that contrail. Honestly I would be more interested to hear that there is still an SR-71 flying than the Aurora is real:

exhaust_sr71.jpg
 
I've been hearing Aurora rumors since the early '70s, including from Dad, who was in charge of the KC-135Q refuelers for the SR-71 out of Kadena back then. The "source" of his rumor was supposedly Kelly Johnson.

Ain't holdin' my breath.
 
........There’s been much speculation about Aurora, much of it promulgated by respected aviation journalist Bill Sweetman, who has scoured DoD budgets for signs of hidden projects and found billions of hidden outlays to pique his interest. Aurora, it is speculated, is powered by a pulse detonation wave engine of some kind, most likely using some form of liquid fuel, perhaps hydrogen, to power its engines. The unusual scalloped formations on the contrail, which are difficult to reconcile with any known weather phenomena, are almost certainly the result of some kind of detonation engine, such as NASA has publicly discussed flying in recent years.
After the Air Force revealed the existence of the SR71, it’s hard to argue that Aurora (or whatever the military is actually calling it) is a fantasy. Indeed, the argument could be made that Aurora, which has been speculated upon for more than a decade now, will be fully disclosed by the military before too long, but probably not before it has a replacement well along in development if not already flying.


The information on Aurora (which isn't code named Aurora) is available through the same open source information system that SRM (aka chemtrail) flights are. . Labeled as something other than the single word/name the public is looking for. . Just as the Gov's name for chemtrail is actually "Solar Radiation Management", and most real Mars exploration news is buried under the name "Phobos monolith". . I'm pretty sure that follow-the-money Sweetman must have figured out Aurora too, but for some reason has decided not to publish. . He's a former editor of Jane's, so he'd know how to access the same information that I have, including the photos. . I'm guessing that the Gov has asked these guys to hold off for now, but like the Blackbird and Stealth, you'll see it eventually on Fox News, when they are ready to disclose officially.

For now, the Gov apparently still wants it written off as a conspiracy theory, just like the Blackbird and Stealth used to be.

.
 
The problem with ever discussing a "conspiracy theory" with any proponent of that theory, especially when using logic and factual information to dispel the theory, is that the proponent of such theories will when cornered inevitably fall back on one of three discussion-ending arguments (or any combination thereof):

1. Well, you're just closed-minded. (Oh, really? And you're not when falling back to a statement such as that?)
2. Prove that it doesn't exist. (Knowing full well that negatives cannot be logically proven)
3. That "information" you're using comes from one of the co-conspirators. (Translation—any fact, argument, or logic that contradicts the conspiracy theory must by definition be part of the conspiracy)

And the proponents of conspiracy theories nearly always initiate such debates with an expressed desire to engage in an open and frank discussion on the topic . . . right up to the point where you demonstrate that the whole theory falls completely apart on one or more little irrefutable details (which is when one or more of the above gets hauled out). As such, I learned long ago not to fall into this trap again. Y'all have fun with the sudden turn this thread took, 'cause I'm outta here post-wise.
 
The problem with ever discussing a "conspiracy theory" with any proponent of that theory, especially when using logic and factual information to dispel the theory, is that the proponent of such theories will when cornered inevitably fall back on one of three discussion-ending arguments (or any combination thereof):

1. Well, you're just closed-minded. (Oh, really? And you're not when falling back to a statement such as that?)
2. Prove that it doesn't exist. (Knowing full well that negatives cannot be logically proven)
3. That "information" you're using comes from one of the co-conspirators. (Translation—any fact, argument, or logic that contradicts the conspiracy theory must by definition be part of the conspiracy)

And the proponents of conspiracy theories nearly always initiate such debates with an expressed desire to engage in an open and frank discussion on the topic . . . right up to the point where you demonstrate that the whole theory falls completely apart on one or more little irrefutable details (which is when one or more of the above gets hauled out)......


Substantially true, which is why when I have time to get into a subject I link to a lot of supporting documentation. . That way serious readers can differentiate between what is merely an unsupported speculative theory vs. newly published cutting edge information. . An added benefit of heavy source linking is that the lazy and closed minded OUT themselves as not having bothered to read the documentation when they start criticizing a post. . Only those that took the time to review the source material know what was actually in it, while the lazy and closed minded have absolutely no idea what is in the post they are criticizing.

Linking to supporting documentation reduces the problem you just cited, letting everybody know who is real, and who is not. . It let's everybody know who can backup what they say vs. those who fill up pages with unsupportable closed minded opinions.

There's a real story behind Aurora. . I'd hardly call it a "conspiracy theory" and Aurora should never be portrayed that way. . It's just one in a long line of routine military black budget programs. . Nobody who's read much about The Skunk Works, or who has spent any time near military R & D would view the Aurora mystery as "conspiratorial".

Example of a documented thread posted to demystify a Conspiracy Theory.
(Requires lots of reading and listening before intelligent rebuttal)
http://forums.jetcareers.com/threads/chemtrail-fleet-pilots-needed-the-real-story-this-time.133052/

.
 
Conspiracy Theories

There is plenty of evidence that the human condition is such that we have a need to believe there is something more than the here-and-now. With the decline in organized religions in the West, there has been something of a shortage in this respect and nature, abhorring as she does a vacuum, has conveniently plugged the gap with the conspiracy theory.
Of course, conspiracies do exist. Watergate, for example, and the Matrix Churchill affair (an arms to Iraq fiasco) in the UK. Clinical paranoia cannot be taken as prima facie evidence that they are not out to get you. But most of the really long-running conspiracy theories are seemingly based on slavish devotion to a fixed idea in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

The best conspiracy theories involve elements of the urban legend, suspicion of the agencies involved, and always the availability of at least one perfectly satisfactory prosaic explanation. One classic example is Roswell.

The Roswell Incident
The Roswell Incident happened in early July 1947 in New Mexico. A craft of some sort crash-landed, and the wreckage was bundled away with some degree of secrecy by the staff of Roswell Air Base. Since this base was used for testing experimental aircraft at the time, this was hardly surprising, but then came the rumors that it was a UFO, bolstered by the release of some rather embarrassingly obvious fake film 'evidence' of an autopsy on an alien being.

Now, UFO's are a reality. A UFO is defined as any unidentified flying object. In these days of saturation radar coverage far fewer flying objects are unidentified, but back in the 1950s it was quite common. Almost all were subsequently identified to everybody's satisfaction, usually being off-track balloons or aircraft. There is nothing which states that a UFO is necessarily of alien origin; in fact, every UFO which has since been satisfactorily identified (ie most of them) turns out not to be.

The crucial point about the Roswell Incident is that absolutely everybody involved refuses to admit that it was anything other than a weather balloon, or materials consistent with a weather balloon. This is taken as evidence that there is a conspiracy. Of course this kind of thinking is not unique; it would require that every single person involved was prepared to tell an orchestrated and consistent lie, even after they had written authority from the President of the United States to reveal the truth of what happened. Consider for a moment the likelihood of a completely leak-free conspiracy.

And it is this which makes the Roswell incident the perfect conspiracy theory; the existence of absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support the alien spaceship theory is taken as proof that not only was there an alien spaceship, but that a huge and wide-ranging conspiracy exists to cover up this fact from the American people.

The Tunguska Incident
Like Roswell, the Tunguska Incident is a perfect example of how people will refuse to accept a prosaic explanation for an extraordinary event. At approximately 7am on 30 June, 1908, there was a large explosion in Siberia, near the Lower Tunguska River. Considerable damage was done, and the blast was undoubtedly felt several hundred miles away.
At the time, there was no convincing theory as to what happened, but there were several odd features of the site, including the fact that trees directly under the epicenter of the explosion were still standing, while those some distance away had been flattened outwards. The conspiracy theory is based on the fact that the same singular features were observed in the Hiroshima and Nagasaki nuclear bomb blasts.

Now, it is obvious to even the most casual observer that any air-burst explosion would cause this effect; the trees at the epicenter experience blast directly downwards, so will of course not be blown over. No matter. Despite the lack of debris of any kind, the fact that there is no measurable increase in background radiation, and the fact that the nuclear weapon was not invented until some 30 years later, a nuclear device it must be, say the theorists. The possibility of a re-entrant comet, or a meteorite whose temperature caused it to explode, cannot be considered. And having decided on a nuclear explosion, it must of course be of alien origin.

So in are trotted the usual arguments. People who spotted 'saucer-shaped objects flying through the sky' (why are these only ever observed by lone eccentrics, one wonders?). Speculation as to why the KGB made no statements about it (the fact that they weren't founded until 40-odd years after the event is apparently no excuse). And so on and so forth.

JFK
Here at least is one conspiracy theory which is probably based on an actual conspiracy. There is little doubt that John F Kennedy (JFK) made powerful enemies, and his conduct was such that his powerful friends were in equal danger from his presidency. The problem, for the theorists, is which conspiracy theory to believe. Was it the Mafia? The KGB? The CIA? The FBI? An embarrassment of riches. The conspiracy appears to be that there are so many conspiracy theories as to make it impossible to pin any one of them down. Or perhaps, like Agatha Christie's Murder on the Orient Express, they all did it.

The National Enquirer
One key reason that conspiracy theories survive is that they are nurtured. These days the Internet is such that even the most bizarre opinion is likely to find a following somewhere (if you don't believe this, read up on Mike Corley). And one of the key nurturers is the National Enquirer, a magazine which combines the unbelievable with the merely unpalatable. This is the natural reading matter for those who sincerely believe that Elvis was abducted by aliens, this being more comforting than the traditional explanation that he simply took too many drugs.

The National Enquirer has its imitators, such as the UK's Sunday Sport, with its 'exclusive' story about a Second World War bomber being found on the moon, but has no real equals.

Survivalists
No consideration of conspiracies would be complete without mention of the survivalist cults of North America. These are people who stockpile arms and food against the day when the American Government will turn against the people. Or in the event of the inevitable nuclear war. Or when the entire planet will be eaten by an enormous mutant star goat, or some such.
However jaundiced your view of early 21st Century American government, and to be fair that can be pretty jaundiced without straying from the mainstream - given that candidates are happy to spend tens of millions of dollars to be elected President, there must be some kind of payback - it is scarcely credible that the future of the world's largest economy could be in the hands of the readership of Soldier of Fortune magazine.

Conclusions
Strange and remarkable things do happen, of course, as do conspiracies. But in a world where nature can give us Krakatoa, St Elmo's Fire, and the Coelacanth, we seem to have a perverse need to look for bizarre explanations when none are required. There can be no other explanation for the observed fact that some people believe that the X files is a documentary.


Have you also noticed how common these extremist types of comments are now in almost every serious online article or discussion that allows them, and that this paranoia is actually but one of several symptoms of a larger type, the classic Narcissist personality, described by Freud, Kohut, Lowen and other psychologists.

Narcissists famously attempt to control everything around them, and assuming the whole world is similarly so "conspiratorial" is only a natural extension of that kind of thinking. It's also been suggested by Christopher Lasch, Jean Twenge, and others, that post-modern western consumer culture is actually contributing to the widespread increase in Narcissism (including the serious clinical variety). And if that's so, there's plenty of evidence to suggest that a lot of these Narcissistic folks are increasingly exploiting all these new online venues basically just for "narcissistic supply" ("everybody pay attention to me, and look how grandiose, brilliant, informed, aggressive, special, entitled, etc., I am!").
 
Back
Top