mirror of
https://github.com/opsxcq/mirror-textfiles.com.git
synced 2025-08-08 13:56:33 +02:00
94 lines
3.9 KiB
Plaintext
94 lines
3.9 KiB
Plaintext
SUBJECT: Aurora Mach 8 FILE: UFO82
|
|
|
|
|
|
There has recently been reports of a mach8 aircraft named
|
|
Aurora being used by the USA Air Force, some examples are
|
|
listed below.
|
|
|
|
Dean Adams writes (Fri, 11 Dec 92 13:49:51 GMT):
|
|
|
|
>>The first sightings (1990-1991) were of a "primarily
|
|
delta-shaped" >>aircraft. (J. Pharabod)
|
|
|
|
>Not really... The first reported Aurora design ideas were of a
|
|
smaller >"almond" shaped sort of vehicle, also called the
|
|
"pulser". The more >recent reports seem to be of something much
|
|
larger. (D. Adams)
|
|
|
|
I was speaking only of the sightings reported in the August 24,
|
|
1992, AW&ST issue. I was not speaking of previous articles, such
|
|
as: "Possible 'Black' Aircraft Seen Flying In Formation With
|
|
F-117s, KC-135s" AW&ST, March 9, 1992 (p. 66)
|
|
|
|
"New Evidence Bolsters Reports of Secret, High-Speed Aircraft",
|
|
AW&ST, May 11, 1992 (p. 62)
|
|
>>Only in the two last sightings (1992) were reported a "narrow
|
|
>>fuselage" and/or a "forward wing or canard". Maybe these two
|
|
last >>sightings can be discarded
|
|
|
|
>WHAT?? The previous reports were based on "design concepts",
|
|
>these are much more direct reports. There is no logical
|
|
|
|
reason >for simply "discarding" such information. I still think
|
|
that the sightings reported in this August 24 issue are not
|
|
better than UFO sightings:
|
|
|
|
1. 1990 sightings: occurred during night or late evening
|
|
(visibility?), number of witnesses not reported, apparently no
|
|
inquiry about the witnesses (tired? drunk? ill?)
|
|
2. April 1991 sighting: daytime, but the craft was said
|
|
"dwarfing an F-16 chasing it". This casts a doubt on this
|
|
sighting: is it usual that US military planes chase US secret
|
|
aircrafts? (well, maybe it was an exercise). Same questions
|
|
about the witnesses.
|
|
3. May 10, 1992: daytime over Atlanta suburbs, but only one
|
|
witness in a populated area. Why other people did not see or
|
|
report anything?
|
|
4. July 12, 1992: during night, only one witness (a motorist),
|
|
no inquiry reported about this witness.
|
|
5. No photos, no video films.
|
|
|
|
>>3). In its December 1991 issue, Popular Mechanics (article
|
|
"America's >>New Secret Aircraft") reports, near Edwards AFB, a
|
|
big triangular object >>which, like the Belgian object, can
|
|
hover silently horizontally and >>vertically... >99% of that
|
|
article consisted of repeating the previous AW&ST report.
|
|
>Then they threw in that one extra report. It did not sound
|
|
like it >was very highly substantiated...
|
|
|
|
It was no more substantiated than the above criticized
|
|
sightings. However, since the object was hovering or flying at
|
|
very low speed, the sightings lasted for more than a few
|
|
seconds, which was probably not the case for the AW&ST
|
|
sightings:
|
|
"[...] The craft moved so slowly one observer said he could jog
|
|
along with it.[...] Observers who followed the craft long enough
|
|
detailed unlikely maneuvers in which the vehicle stopped,
|
|
rotated in place and hovered vertically, presenting a thin
|
|
trailing edge to the ground."
|
|
|
|
>>c) Popular Mechanics and AW&ST are no more serious than UFO
|
|
reviews.
|
|
|
|
>Strike Three. :-> Where is the logic there? I can't speak
|
|
for P.M., >but have you ever read AW&ST? It is VERY serious.
|
|
|
|
Yes, I have read it. It's generally serious... except when it
|
|
reports sightings. In this last case, it seems no more serious
|
|
than UFO reviews (at least I think so, since I don't read UFO
|
|
reviews).
|
|
|
|
Brad Whitehurst writes (Thu, 10 Dec 1992 23:31:26 GMT):
|
|
|
|
I'll believe AW&ST over the Wall Street Journal and Pop
|
|
>Mechanics any day! They've got an intelligence net second only
|
|
to the >CIA...hmmm, mebbe even better!
|
|
|
|
Sounds generally true, but when they report sightings, they
|
|
don't look very serious. See my answer to Dean Adams on
|
|
sci.space this day for more details.
|
|
|
|
|
|
**********************************************
|
|
* THE U.F.O. BBS - http://www.ufobbs.com/ufo *
|
|
********************************************** |