Message posted by Chris McDowell on September 25, 2006 at 17:59:38 PST:
I used to believe in the Aurora, but over the years, it has become more and more clear that it just isn't out there. Also, I don't have any idea why you can say that you're "sure" we have an aircraft that can both fly at Mach 9 AND hover silently. Even if we had aircraft technology that could accomplish that (which I doubt, despite how cool it would be if we did), those two capabilities are incompatible. They are completely conflicting mission types. If you do some reading (there's a bunch of info on this site), you'll see some pretty convincing evidence that the Aurora isn't out there (at least not in the "classic" Aurora sense), and the TR-3 is a pretty shaky idea as well (too easily explained as a misunderstanding of the Tier-3 designation). Everyone's entitled to their opinion of course, and true, I don't KNOW any more than anyone else. But for me, there's plenty of real evidence of interesting things flying around Groom -- too much so to spend much time chasing less likely programs. I do believe that the Chris Gibson North Sea sighting was legit (based on his credentials as a spotter), but I've seen no evidence linking whatever that plane was to the supposed Aurora aircraft. For one thing, if it was a strategic recon plane (as Aurora supposedly is), it makes no sense for F-111s to be escorting it. Of course, I can't imagine what a Vark would be escorting to begin with (it should be the reverse). However, if the mystery jet was an attack platform (which Aurora is not supposed to be), then it would be right at home hanging out with -111s. So that seems more likely to me. A lot of times, people want to believe so badly that a project exists, that they tend to fit the evidence to their theory, instead of the other way around. It's human nature. If you're convinced, then it's really easy to jump to conclusions. Aurora is supposed to be triangular in shape, someone sees a triangular object in the sky, so people add 2 and 2 and come up with 5. Chris M.
In Reply to: Re: Come on, Mick. posted by mick on September 25, 2006 at 8:05:34 PST:
Replies: