Army Helicopter's UFO Scare Still A Mystery, 40 Years Later
Discussion
Not sure about Aurora, a couple of things make me think though. One is this sighting by Chris Gibson and the other, maybe you'd know Eric, is why was the SR71 retired? Are satellites the main/only reason? cost? or was it because they have something else/better?
This is from The Independent 1992.
Oil rig engineer sketches secret US spy aircraft
A BRITISH engineer working on an oil rig in the North Sea has made the first sketch of what may be a new US top-secret 5,000 mph reconnaissance plane, according to Jane's Defence Weekly. It has published an impression of the plane, tentatively named Aurora.
Chris Gibson, an oil drill engineer, told Jane's he saw the aircraft from the rig Galveston Key in August 1989. A trained member of the Royal Observer Corps, he said that it was apparently refuelling from a KC-135 tanker and was escorted by two F- 111 bombers. Although high, it was clearly visible against high cloud.
He did not take his sketch to the media at the time, as he was still a member of the ROC, a home-defence organisation funded by the Home Office. The ROC was abolished on 30 September last year. Santa Fe Drilling, which owns the Galveston Key, an offshore drilling unit, says it was hired to Amoco at the time and would have been south of the 54th parallel, in the UK sector of the southern North Sea. This is further south than previous reports linked with the Aurora.
Mr Gibson took his sketch to Bill Sweetman, author of the article in Jane's, who said Aurora would travel at eight times the speed of sound - 5,280 mph. This would enable it to reach any point on the earth's surface in three hours.
The name Aurora derives from an unexplained line in the 1984 US defence budget next to the SR-71 Blackbird. The Pentagon retired the SR-71 early in 1990, saying it would rely on satellites, but satellite orbits are predictable.
Experts believe the US has developed a successor to the SR-71, shrouded in the secrecy of its 'black budget', and that the aircraft may be flying across the Atlantic. A Scottish air traffic controller has picked up something travelling at three times the speed of sound and people living near Machrihanish, Argyll, a Nato reserve airfield have complained of a 'pulsating, ear- splitting shriek'. That is the sound associated with a hybrid rocket-ramjet engine suitable for a 'hypersonic' plane - one that goes at more than five times the speed of sound.
In California, the US Geological Survey picked up several sonic booms over southern Nevada in late 1991 and earlier this year. They were made by something travelling at several times the speed of sound - and not the Space Shuttle.
Mr Gibson's sketch indicates an aircraft in the form of a 75 degree swept triangle and the right shape for a 'lifting body aircraft' - in which the body itself provides lift. A hypersonic plane goes so fast it does not need conventional wings. Up to a certain speed it is rocket-powered, but then a ramjet, using the air ingested at great speed, takes over.
The article says the aircraft appears to be up to 27 m (81 ft) long.
This is from The Independent 1992.
Oil rig engineer sketches secret US spy aircraft
A BRITISH engineer working on an oil rig in the North Sea has made the first sketch of what may be a new US top-secret 5,000 mph reconnaissance plane, according to Jane's Defence Weekly. It has published an impression of the plane, tentatively named Aurora.
Chris Gibson, an oil drill engineer, told Jane's he saw the aircraft from the rig Galveston Key in August 1989. A trained member of the Royal Observer Corps, he said that it was apparently refuelling from a KC-135 tanker and was escorted by two F- 111 bombers. Although high, it was clearly visible against high cloud.
He did not take his sketch to the media at the time, as he was still a member of the ROC, a home-defence organisation funded by the Home Office. The ROC was abolished on 30 September last year. Santa Fe Drilling, which owns the Galveston Key, an offshore drilling unit, says it was hired to Amoco at the time and would have been south of the 54th parallel, in the UK sector of the southern North Sea. This is further south than previous reports linked with the Aurora.
Mr Gibson took his sketch to Bill Sweetman, author of the article in Jane's, who said Aurora would travel at eight times the speed of sound - 5,280 mph. This would enable it to reach any point on the earth's surface in three hours.
The name Aurora derives from an unexplained line in the 1984 US defence budget next to the SR-71 Blackbird. The Pentagon retired the SR-71 early in 1990, saying it would rely on satellites, but satellite orbits are predictable.
Experts believe the US has developed a successor to the SR-71, shrouded in the secrecy of its 'black budget', and that the aircraft may be flying across the Atlantic. A Scottish air traffic controller has picked up something travelling at three times the speed of sound and people living near Machrihanish, Argyll, a Nato reserve airfield have complained of a 'pulsating, ear- splitting shriek'. That is the sound associated with a hybrid rocket-ramjet engine suitable for a 'hypersonic' plane - one that goes at more than five times the speed of sound.
In California, the US Geological Survey picked up several sonic booms over southern Nevada in late 1991 and earlier this year. They were made by something travelling at several times the speed of sound - and not the Space Shuttle.
Mr Gibson's sketch indicates an aircraft in the form of a 75 degree swept triangle and the right shape for a 'lifting body aircraft' - in which the body itself provides lift. A hypersonic plane goes so fast it does not need conventional wings. Up to a certain speed it is rocket-powered, but then a ramjet, using the air ingested at great speed, takes over.
The article says the aircraft appears to be up to 27 m (81 ft) long.
The SR71s were becoming old airframes. They were also horrendously expensive to operate - each operation being more like a space mission rather than an aeroplane flight.
And with the end of the Cold War, the need for such an asset was perceived to have diminished. So, all these factors were what made it seem sensible to retire it.
Since then, of course, other aircraft, especially unmanned high altitude aircraft like the Global Hawk can do a lot of the work that the SR71s did at much lower cost and zero risk to crew. And the U-2 is still in service.
Satellites are now more capable and new technology like the X-43 orbital space plane will go a long way to filling any holes left by the departure of the SR-71.
There was a detailed discussion on the SR-71 on PH a few weeks ago in the "Planes, Boats, Trains" forum where a lot of these points were discussed.
I don't really see a need for a direct replacement for the SR-71.
And with the end of the Cold War, the need for such an asset was perceived to have diminished. So, all these factors were what made it seem sensible to retire it.
Since then, of course, other aircraft, especially unmanned high altitude aircraft like the Global Hawk can do a lot of the work that the SR71s did at much lower cost and zero risk to crew. And the U-2 is still in service.
Satellites are now more capable and new technology like the X-43 orbital space plane will go a long way to filling any holes left by the departure of the SR-71.
There was a detailed discussion on the SR-71 on PH a few weeks ago in the "Planes, Boats, Trains" forum where a lot of these points were discussed.
I don't really see a need for a direct replacement for the SR-71.
What would the observer corp have done and how I wonder?
The recent attempts at getting to speed for the small test vehicle to work is interesting yet for 20 years we have had a working example? Don't think so. What they needed to do to keep someone alive in a SR71 (and its kin) or the X15 yet there is a hypersonic vehicle that is able to get up to speed and come down in altitude to refuel then get back up again..... on its own steam. The issues are mounting in the evidence department. Not saying it aint so, but no proof is no proof.
The recent attempts at getting to speed for the small test vehicle to work is interesting yet for 20 years we have had a working example? Don't think so. What they needed to do to keep someone alive in a SR71 (and its kin) or the X15 yet there is a hypersonic vehicle that is able to get up to speed and come down in altitude to refuel then get back up again..... on its own steam. The issues are mounting in the evidence department. Not saying it aint so, but no proof is no proof.
The X-15 was not an aeroplane that could be flown every day. It was really a space ship and the preparation for each flight took months rather than days or weeks - rather like the Space Shuttle.
It would have been useless for anything other than the role it was designed for, research into hypersonic aerodynamic flight.
It would have been useless for anything other than the role it was designed for, research into hypersonic aerodynamic flight.
tuscaneer said:
What an absolute load of b
ks all this ufo ste really is . juvenile escapism for nutjob conspiracy theorists at best . unless anybody has got some evidence to the contrary? ??..... thought not
So how exactly did you develop your opinion on "this ufo sks all this ufo ste really is . juvenile escapism for nutjob conspiracy theorists at best . unless anybody has got some evidence to the contrary? ??..... thought notte"? By watching Independence Day?jmorgan said:
Appreciate that, but for those speeds they have to go high (if it was real) or the atmosphere becomes a bigger issue I would have thought? Either way the human has to be kept alive and near enough no atmosphere to speak of.
Like in a space craft. I think we've cracked that one. A Space Shuttle could keep seven people alive for a fortnight in a complete vacuum.Edited by Eric Mc on Tuesday 29th October 22:49
RegMolehusband said:
So how exactly did you develop your opinion on "this ufo ste"? By watching Independence Day?
Doesn't strike me as that different from forming the "UFOs are real" opinion from watching X Files, but there you go.te"? By watching Independence Day?Regarding Aurora, I can fully accept that something existed, perhaps as a project code name rather than a specific vehicle, but I'd tend to side with Eric in that whatever it was, the development of ever better satellites, drones and online capabilities has probably rendered it obsolete, or at the very least massively cost ineffective. One idea I've heard that I find interesting is that "Aurora" was disinformation designed to observe how these rumours emerge and evolve through the (what was then still quite new) internet. Putting out bait and then seeing who bites wouldn't be an entirely unreasonable project, as it would reveal any number of networks. Might have been designed to identify leaks from within, who knows? Misdirection is hardly a new idea, so I can well believe it goes on. My hunch is that's why Nick Pope entered the fray.
The point about lack of footage in the modern age is also significant. Just look at how much (and how rapidly) dash cam footage of the Chelyabinsk meteor emerged. It was viral in what, a few hours, if that? In an age where the majority of the population are walking around with previously unimaginable photographic technology in their pockets, not to mention the means of disseminating it globally more or less instantly and free from any mainstream editorial decisions, there ought to be masses of footage, but there just isn't. Interestingly, the shift from nuts and bolts sightings and footage shifted to more conspiracy themed events at round about the same time. Would it be a leap to suggest the whole conspiracy narrative is a device to explain away lack of footage? "There's loads of footage, but it's being suppressed!" is a brilliant strategy, as not only does it absolve you from having to present evidence of any sort, it gives you a tool with which to dismiss any naysayers. Whether that's a deliberate ploy on behalf of those within ufology to explain away lack of footage and develop revenue channels, or more of a subconscious shift I don't know, but it's certainly there.
I think your final point is the clearest nail in the UFO theories coffin. People these days film and photograph EVERYTHING, just have a look at Twitter, Facebook, Instagram and all their compatriots.
If it's flying around in public, someone's gonna see it and it'll be online in seconds. The Russian metor was a great example of this.
If it's flying around in public, someone's gonna see it and it'll be online in seconds. The Russian metor was a great example of this.
Eric Mc said:
jmorgan said:
Appreciate that, but for those speeds they have to go high (if it was real) or the atmosphere becomes a bigger issue I would have thought? Either way the human has to be kept alive and near enough no atmosphere to speak of.
Like in a space craft. I think we've cracked that one. A Space Shuttle could keep seven people alive for a fortnight in a complete vacuum.Edited by Eric Mc on Tuesday 29th October 22:49
Anyway. Interesting problem solving thought exercise though I am no expert.
As you say, controlled SUSTAINED hypersonic flight in (relatively) dense atmosphere (sub 100,00 feet) is not easy and even today it has not been achieved for more than about 10 to 15 minutes.
The test flights of the X-43 and X-51 Waverider show that developing this capability is very, very hard. It is difficult for me to believe that they have bothered to run these research programmes if they had already built an aircraft 20 years ago that seemed to be able to do what the X-43 and X-51 find extremely difficult to do today.
The test flights of the X-43 and X-51 Waverider show that developing this capability is very, very hard. It is difficult for me to believe that they have bothered to run these research programmes if they had already built an aircraft 20 years ago that seemed to be able to do what the X-43 and X-51 find extremely difficult to do today.
Eric Mc said:
It is difficult for me to believe that they have bothered to run these research programmes if they had already built an aircraft 20 years ago that seemed to be able to do what the X-43 and X-51 find extremely difficult to do today.
That bit's not difficult for me to believe, just preventing the research programme starting could be sufficient to let on to those watching that you have the technology. Better to let the contractors get paid twice.At which point the conspiracists jump in with wacky theories i.e the seemingly only partially successful research programmes are (a very expensive) smoke screen to hide the fact that they already have the capability.
Always the option chosen when a realistic scenario is proposed.
And at this point one realises that putting forward logical facts based on real information is a total waste of time. Those who believe in the "woo woo" will always believe in the "woo woo", no matter what sensible points are raised.
Always the option chosen when a realistic scenario is proposed.
And at this point one realises that putting forward logical facts based on real information is a total waste of time. Those who believe in the "woo woo" will always believe in the "woo woo", no matter what sensible points are raised.
RegMolehusband said:
tuscaneer said:
What an absolute load of bks all this ufo ste really is . juvenile escapism for nutjob conspiracy theorists at best . unless anybody has got some evidence to the contrary? ??..... thought not
So how exactly did you develop your opinion on "this ufo sks all this ufo ste really is . juvenile escapism for nutjob conspiracy theorists at best . unless anybody has got some evidence to the contrary? ??..... thought notte"? By watching Independence Day?just, for a minute, think about the fragile nature of life on this planet. there have been five major mass extinction events and every one of them has drastically changed the way life evolved forward. it is an absolute lottery win(several times over) that we are even here at all to tell the tale. if you start to really think about it what are the chances of intelligent life evolving at all??
the way I see it life throughout the universe should be quite common. factor in the number of stars that have existed since they started bursting into life after the dark age following the big bang and i'm quite sure there are/have been plenty of planets that would allow life to start and even flourish.but what are the chances of that life having the time to survive all the twists and turns long enough to evolve into something similar in intelligence to us?
now factor in distances.for now let's factor out anything outside of our own milky way because any other distances and times involved in little green men getting to earth(let alone finding it)are ridiculous. Andromeda is our closest neighbour and is a couple of million light years away.
so to the milky way. it's ,what, 100,000 light years across and even though it contains billions of stars the ones that are closest to us are still a good distance from us.
a quick wiki check lists the nearest 55 stars to us ranging from 4.2 light years away up to 16.2 light years away.of all those 55 stars we think there are only a handful of planets.how many of those planets are capable of sustaining life?? now think about the possibility of that life developing along similar lines to we have on the earth. it is simply impossible to even comprehend.
there may well be a few instances of intelligent life having developed in the milky way but what are the odds of them
a) being able to find us(impossible)
b) being able to get to us (impossible)
c) having their sliver of a window of existence coincide exactly with ours (impossible)
yeah, I think that'll do for now.
little green men coming to the earth in spaceships to stab cows in the vagina. yeah, right. stick to watching x files/star trek/doctor who etc.
Hilts said:
What does that have to do with UFOs though?
Unless you're of the hard opinion that UFOs must originate from another planet somewhere in the universe.
The implication as always that these fantastic crafts perform inhuman feats of such awesome proportions that they can't be of this earth. I appreciate that this thread has steered off in a rather more military/ sensible direction but regmolehusband is definitely cut a bit more from the woo woo cloth as per his other threads on the same subject in the pastUnless you're of the hard opinion that UFOs must originate from another planet somewhere in the universe.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff