Talk:Aurora (aircraft)

message: Ok, assuming the US Government would want a recon and strike aircraft, the article notes the the retired Phoenix would be the missile for the job. I'm not saying that the military wouldn't bring it back out, but how are you goning to fit it in there? I've looked at and examined nearly every possible extimated shape out there, and none of them have anything suggesting the capability of harboring missiles. Internal storage? All the possible power sources- Pulse Jet (unlikely), ScramJet (likely), or some methane-fueled monstrosety, all take up large amounts of space. The pulse jet is unlikely for low thrust, but Scramjet are characteristically large things that take up the majorety of the plane. I definetly think that the whole armament section should be taken off, it just seems to unlikely. While not wihtout precedent, see the RS-71 naming, i just don't think that the government would use it to strike when we have so many better things for the job. my two cents The Walkin Dude 02:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Armed Variant?

message: The graphic is the most rediculous thing I've ever seen.  It looks like a flying killer whale.  22:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: None of the graphics in the article convey the shape of the airplane.  If there is any shape that is. -broodlinger 24.184.67.122 22:52, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Graphic

message: I want to add some reference to what many say Aurora really was ( the codename for the B-2 fly-off), I figure a separate section of the article would be more appropriate?
PPGMD
The 'fireball' video looks quite like sunlight reflecting off a contrail at sunset. 67.187.48.82 20:23, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Or swamp gas from Venus reflecting off a weather balloon. Joffeloff 12:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

text: This isn't a competition. PPGMD 01:14, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: General discussion

message: The article needs to be removed and/or revised based upon the revelations provided by Avaition Week.   The plane sighted in 1989 is probably the Blackstar "carrier" plane.  Matt V
: We have an article about Blackstar based on the Aviation Week story.  While SR-3 and Aurora sound, in some respects similar, we've no way of knowing that they are the same, or whether both or either actually exists.  A lot said about Aurora doesn't match SR-3 (the former reportedly being an airbreathing hypersonic recon plane with exotic engines, the latter a fairly conventional supersonic aircraft used only (seemingly) to lift a spaceplane.  Merging the two based on the incredibly scant evidence would be like merging yeti with bigfoot. I've put in a mention of Aurora into Blackstar, mentioning that they might really be the same; I think this artcle should have a (similarly equivocal) mention of Blackstar. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 15:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Blackstar

message: "3) Something in the air was triggering seismic sensors in the south-west United States."
What has this to do with something happening in the North Sea (halfway around the world)? If the mystery plane was causing shock waves that registered on seismographs, then I'm thinking it would shake the hell out of the eastern UK and Norway, or at least reach the local papers, before the faintest remnants reached seismic sensors in the US.  I'm cutting this. Hasty Fool 17:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  North Sea "seismic" activity 

message: I'm an interested agnostic on Aurora but I've added in a section on the newly released UK MoD report because unusually in this rumour-filled area it is an official report which deals with sightings of "Black" projects. I am asking the MoD to consider releasing the blanked out sections. I've also tweaked the line saying "no conclusive evidence supporting the existence of a hypersonic plane has ever reached the public domain" in case it came as a bit of a surprise to old X-15 pilots.  Newsnightmeirion
:Very interesting news article. Also, I've linked some of the words & expressions in your text. Some of them, such as "transatmospheric", remains to be defined or have their articles created on Wikipedia. --Henrickson 09:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: UK MoD report

message: I am not sure why, under the video game section, it describes and "Islamic" aircraft.  I do not believe that aircraft can become Islamic, any more than the Aurora is christian...
:Here, "Islamic" refers to Fundamental/Extremist Islam, and members of insurgent militias following to such ideology (which most likely fights to remove foreign armed presence from their country and topple the government to replace it with a theocracy). The interceptor aircraft the insurgents use are probably stolen or captured from the Egyptian Air Force (where such a feat, if happening in real life, would be considered very spectacular, formidable and terrifying — can you imagine dozens of fighter jets (fully armed with guns, bombs & missiles) in the hands of terrorists?), or leased from another country's air force. (Whether the insurgents are trained in combat aircraft or not, or hired mercenary pilots, is another question.) --Henrickson 21:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have the game in question.  The game was made in the mid-90s (pre War on Terror), and the scenario is a civil war between the radicalised Egyptian military ("Islamic Egyptian") and the secular Egyptian government ("Arab Egyptian"). FiggyBee 23:44, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Islamic Egyptian Aircraft? 

message: This article currently has three templates trying to tell the reader that its a sack of bollocks - I believe one is sufficient. The 'black project' template is a new one I haven't seen before. We should decide which ones to keep. Joffeloff 15:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the black project one, but I don't believe it's strong enough. Also the clean up one would still hold true, this articles needs alot of work. PPGMD 15:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is quite specific though - it states that the article does NOT contain speculation, it states that the article contains the only 'verifiable' information, in which case this one will need a lot of weeding. I think what it needs is citations, especially for all the aviationleak references, the oil worker spotting, the MoD report, and so on. Joffeloff 15:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hmmm I might add something to the effect, that any information here may be found as false in the future, and should not be relied on as the sole source for future research. PPGMD 15:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  templates 

message: I removed alot of the junk from the Intro, just way too much information, much of it contradictory, and confusing. Intros should be short and to the point. PPGMD 11:49, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shortened the Intro 

message: In the section on the UK MoD report there is the sentence, "The Mach 8-12 aircraft may refer to what the USAF announced as the Falcon Project in 2003 but this is the first official mention of a USAF plan for an Aurora-like Mach 4-6 vehicle."  However, there is nothing about this 'Falcon Project' that I can find on Wikipedia or the internet.  Can somebody provide a link for some information about it?  If there is info about it, and it's a real project, it should have its own Wikipedia article. Grant 09:08, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Falcon Project 

message: Image is not Aurora or SR71 but X48B - the scaled down Blended Wing Body built at Cranfield UK for Boeing Shadow Works - being wind-tunnel tested at Langley before flight trials. X48B is 8.5% model of giant 90 metre wingspan proposed military transport/airliner. Newsnightmeirion 11:29, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The image at the top of the article is an artists impression of Aurora. It is black because most known super/hypersonic military aircraft are; the black also represents secrecy, black projects.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 18:41, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aurora/SR71 image ????? 

message: I think the BBC paper is laughable. Who drew all this little crosses? It looks like a hoax from a 12-year-old. -- 790 12:09, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok you're right I misread the source. Still, this whole thing just doesn't look proper. There's no use in drawing this little crosses after blanking the text. Furthermore, at least one of the documents (, p5) has handwritten notes saying "not ralevant" (sic!). What could be the relevance of a document they would leave to such a dork to prepare it before publication? -- 790 17:57, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  BBC paper 

message: The “Doughnuts on a rope” contrail may have been cased by ordinary sonic booms, as seen in the URL below.
http://www.vinland.com/SonicBoom.html
Not sure if this should be added to the article or not.
 Xargon666x6 12:27, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Doughnuts on a rope

message: *I watched a Discovery Science (Malaysia) program yesterday about the Aurora "plane". In that program, they interviewed a British military trained airplane-spotter who claims to have seen a black triangular shaped airplane flying behind a refueling tanker aircraft. The black triangular airplane was flanked on the left by a conventional jet. He made a sketch of what he saw, anyone have links to this? Maybe we can put it up. --Pavithran 04:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Can't find any links, but you should check out the Chris Gibson (North Sea Delta witness) article. It has more details on this aircraft recognition expert. --Henrickson 02:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discovery Channel Program

message: I looked all over the internet for the satellite image that we do not cite and, alas, I could not find it. If we are not going to source the claim or show the actual image we should pull the section.
:I totally agree. Perhaps someone could contact Mr. Cook and ask him where it might be possible to obtain the photograph, or if it falls under fair use guidelines? Worth a try...
--Sturmwehr 03:32, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Nick Cook's History Channel Program

message: The specifications section should at least refer to quoted estimates by known scientists, rather than devolving to speculation.  For instance, the amount of energy required for the necessary acceleration rules out several of the fuel types just by energy density and conversion efficiency alone.  For independent maneuvering, the craft must carry its energy source!  "magnetohydrodynamics" would require a huge electrical current and enormous coil of (possibly cryo-cooled) wire to generate thrust using the rarefied atmosphere at such altitude.  Bear in mind many similar projects have used booster rockets to achieve the necessary velocity.  Though little is known about the aircraft, it is unlikely to use concepts that have not been tested both theoretically and in the laboratory.130.207.156.23 21:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speculative Specifications 

message: :Image:AceCombat3 Aurora 1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 06:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:AceCombat3 Aurora 1.jpg

message: The account appears to have little notability of its own outside of this aircraft, so I propose merging what is useful and redirecting here. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 07:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. It's not a real biography, just an account of a sighting. I'm not even sure if we should have the verbatim account on Wikipedia - it seems like it'd be better in Wikisource. Will Beback NS (talk) 01:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, it's pretty non-notable. JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 03:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've redirected Chris Gibson (North Sea Delta witness) here without merging anything for the time being, because nothing in that article is referenced to a reliable source. If such sources turn up later, some content can be merged from the history. Sandstein (talk) 20:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger of eyewitness account

message: :Image:Testors Aurora Collage 1.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 09:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Testors Aurora Collage 1.jpg

message: One of the parts of the story that seemed particularly weak was the name. "Aurora" was selected because it appeared as a line item in a budget document. I am currently reading a National Academy of Sciences report called "Review of the Department of Energy’s Inertial Confinement Fusion Program", which was published in September 1990. The paper discusses a variety of issues relating to controlled fusion experiments, and led indirectly to the current National Ignition Facility efforts. Why do I mention this? Well on the very first page I found:
...and a subsequent meeting was held in La Jolla on August 21, 1990, to consider future experiments possible with the AURORA facility.
Aurora was a high-power KrF ICF laser built at Los Alamos. Given the time frame, the general secrecy surrounding these machines, and the common name, is there any chance the line item in question was the budget for this laser?
Maury (talk) 12:52, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Aurora name 

message: It was late August 1990 about 50 miles South of Amarillo, TX.  It was about 10:00PM and I was in the yard
working on my car's engine. (With a flashlight.)  I looked up by chance to swat a mosquito and noticed what looked like
the yellow/orange blast of a missle heading due North towards Amarillo.  No sound, and it was moving fast.  It was
a uniform glow, not like the streak of a meteor.  I remember being a little scared thinking that someone had launched
an ICBM at the Pantex plant in Amarillo.  It flew directly overhead and was near the horizon to the North when I heard
jet engines, the out of phase sound of more than one.  Then I saw 2 fighter jets long and sleek like F-16's or F-111's fly right
in front of the moon which was in the West at this time.  They were in chase with the craft I saw moving so fast a few seconds before.
None of them had any type of lights on or blinking.  If the 2 fighters had not flown by the moon I would have thought the sound
was comming from the first craft.
I don't know if this helps anyone, but after reading this article I thought I would chime in.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.41.47.8 (talk) 22:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It might. At any rate, thanks. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:21, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Testimonial of Mike Jentzen 

message: From the history section it appears -to me, at least- that the name "Aurora" was made public by AW&ST for the first time in 1990. However, I've got here a 1988 year review of aviation which already mentions "Aurora" by that name. They don't have a source for it, but tend to use AW&ST information. So the name "Aurora" was publicly known at least in 1988, possibly also via AW&ST. Can someone make clear exactly what is implied with the 1990 mention in the History section? Is 1990 just referring to the discovery if the name Aurora IN THE BUDGET, or the discovery of the name "Aurora" itself? Nicolas Herdwick (talk) 13:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See my comment above. Aurora first mentioned in Aviation Week around 1984-1987. I'm 100% certain the article exists, 90% sure the plane doesn't. --71.214.221.153 (talk) 14:29, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  History: the name "Aurora" 

message: I think that the use of the term "conspiracy theorists" does not fit the definition found on that page. Aurora may be secret, but if it exists, does anyone actually think that it would be illegal?
:Still, it's deceiving the public, denying the existence of this thing, if it exists. Covering up the death of Paul McCartney may not be strictly harmful, but it's still a conspiracy theory (I don't believe it anyway.) Besides, if Aurora exists, it could be used for fraudulent purposes easily enough. In fact, its existence has been suggested by at least 2 free-energists, Nick Cook and William R. Lyne (no Wikipedia article; author of Occult Ether Physics and Pentagon Aliens). Pentagon Aliens is where I first read about Aurora.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 04:37, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conspiracy? 

message: There appears to be a problem with the data in the  template.  The powerplant section says:
:Powerplant: (Low Speed) 4× afterburning turbofans, (unknown thrust) each, (High Speed) 4× ramjets, scramjets or pulse detonation engines (267 kN est. thrust) (High Speed) 4× ramjets, scramjets or pulse detonation engines each
Notice the repeated "(High Speed) 4× ramjets, scramjets or pulse detonation engines"?  I think this has something to do with the template, but I'm unsure how to fix it.  Astronaut (talk) 16:06, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error in specification section  

message: I added a few words to the Lazar section.  It was written too much as if it's fact, when even many Ufologists dispute his story.  I don't think it needs too much on this, but just a few words to make it more clear that this is just a controversial testimony.  I feel my edit was a little clunky, so I hope some one can clean that a little to make it nicer to read. Awareenemy (talk) 22:24, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a reference to show that his information has been refuted? - Ahunt (talk) 18:41, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

text: Agree that the paragraph should be deleted - material from Bob Lazar does not constitute evidence, and the section is called "Additional evidence". Lazar's claims have never attained any sort of useful evidentiary standard, and genuine physicists trip him up too easily. That the physics of a hypothetical UFO expert might be different isn't the problem... but he ought to have picked up college level physics along the way. A highly unreliable witness. Singe onion (talk) 06:37, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see any need to delete it, it is cited, is on topic and does add to the article, but I do agree that it isn't really "evidence" so i have retitled the section "Additional claims" since they are all unverified. - Ahunt (talk) 11:53, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lazar section 

message: Surely someone looking at the video has realized that the "split" cloud is the shadow of the missile exhaust.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by William A Roberts (talk • contribs) 08:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fox News missile video 

message: The possibility of this aircraft being a hoax exists. 99.236.221.124 (talk) 20:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes it is possible that the aircraft itself is a hoax.  The article is written to ackowledge that fact.  The lede calls the aircraft a "hypothesised United States reconnaissance aircraft, alleged to be capable of hypersonic flight."  This is an acknowledgement that the aircraft may not be real.  None of this is a reason for the  tag on the article.  The coverage of the hypothesised aircraft is real and that is what the article discusses.  That tag is for articles that proclaim to be real and are probably not.  I am going to remove the  tag from the article.  ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 21:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

text: I don't think so. It clearly states that the aircraft is in use by US military and has an unknown price in the sidebar. Article continues to use weasel terms like "according to the hypothesis",  "it is believed to be" while presenting the Aircraft as real, several times implying that the project was actually real all with the aim of spreading hearsay. The title itself claims that Aurora was a real aircraft. You can't very well start an article saying "According to the hypothesis Santa Claus exists" and then continue to treat the subject matter as factual. That isn't how wikipedia works. For now, I will put weasel word, citation, clarification and other tags where needed, if the matter isn't cleared up the Hoax tag goes back up. 99.236.221.124 (talk) 01:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The only place I can find that it said that the aircraft is in use by US military was in the infobox.  I removed the primary user from the infobox because it was not supported.  The article definetly needs to be cleaned up and rewritten but I don't believe the article itself is not a hoax.  It is an article about a airplane that we can not confirm the existence of but we can confirm that some people believe it exists.  ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 02:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hoax 

message: I'm seriously considering removing large sections of this article because of the absence of sources for a lot of the claims which have been made. Also, a lot of the sources which are given have no sources of their own and seem to be only opinion and baseless speculation. 
A lot of the claims in the article have been tagged as unreferenced since as far back as 2008 in some cases, so I think it is time to eliminate the more dubious claims, and only add them back in once reliable sources have been found. I won't be removing the entire article, however, since there probably is merit for its existence, it just needs considerably better sources. 
What does everyone think? I'll proceed with this in a day or two if their are no objections. I have a work in progress version here . Rtdixon86 (talk) 16:59, 4 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Absent and unreliable references, dead links 

message: The only aircraft that really does exist and fits into some of the speculative nonsense in this article is the Lockheed D-21. As that article already exists this one can safely be scrapped. Roger (talk) 20:46, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a raging debate over the existence of this aircraft, but unless there is a consensus to go to AFD, it will stay. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 21:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If it should not be deleted then I think this article could be handed over to the "loony-toons nutcase conspiracies" wikiproject together with all the other tinfoil hat wearing, alien abduction, area 51, who really shot JFK, rubbish. It's a better fit there than with the serious, real world, work of the Aviation Wikiproject. Roger (talk) 07:59, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do not mistake my compliance here; I have no relevant knowledge whether Aurora exists or not, nor am I a proponent of its retention as an article, but since there is no legitimate tinwiki, this is its home for now. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 11:52, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I searched around and discovered that there actually is a WikiProject for this kind of stuff - WikiProject Rational Skepticism. I believe they could really help get this article into shape so I'm going to add the Project template. Roger (talk) 12:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

text: Wow, there's a logical conclusion that utterly fails to hang together! Shame on you  8-(   Andy Dingley (talk) 15:09, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If you think that there isn't enough reliable material to show this aircraft exists then by all means take it to WP:AFD. If it gets deleted it can be added to List of fictional aircraft. - Ahunt (talk) 15:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Even if "not real", this doesn't belong under "fictional" aircraft - it's something different. "Fictional aircraft" imply a fiction, and the aircraft being invented to serve that. Aurora has more in common with the F-19s and the He 113 than a Rutland Reindeer. Besides which, List of fictional aircraft is WP:LISTCRUFT personified and quite nasty enough already. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:51, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well if it isn't a real aircraft and face it there isn't much in the way of evidence that it is, and it is not fictional (i.e. made up to be used in a fictional work), then perhaps it would be better classified under Urban legends! - Ahunt (talk) 15:56, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I wouldn't argue with that. Maybe under a sub-class of those, related to aviation (see my own talk: too). Andy Dingley (talk) 16:01, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lockheed D-21 

message: I added :Category:Conspiracy theories in the United States some time ago. Does anyone object to calling Aurora a conspiracy theory? I'd classify it as such, even though I'm somewhat of a conspiracy theorist myself.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 18:20, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say including that category is probably reasonable. - Ahunt (talk) 18:32, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Conspiracy

message: The term myth has at least two meanings. The first is mythology. The second is a popular notion that is believed to be false. Both apply somewhat in this case. The first in that it is considered an urban legend, a popular culture notion that is believe to be false, inaccurate, of difficult or impossible to verify. The second in that Aurora's existence is, according to this article, known to be denied by the U.S. gov't.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 04:44, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Another point

message: The story and image looks a lot like the rumored Aurora. http://news.yahoo.com/contact-lost-hypersonic-glider-launch-163016325.html
71.198.209.193 (talk) 17:45, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: A totally different aircraft, see Hypersonic Technology Vehicle 2. The HPV2 is different in many ways from the Aurora - much smaller, unmanned, different mission and most importantly, it exists. - Ahunt (talk) 18:31, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  crashed UAV that looks like the aurora 

message: "Obviously they didn't think anybody was out there. It was thirty below zero - probably ninety below with the wind chill factor"
According to this calculator, this would have required a wind speed over 1000 km/h. Very impressive! It's also impressive that the base temperature of -30 seems highly suspect by itself, given that the record low for Tonopah is -10. So basically this report is highly suspect based on his weather report alone.
Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:45, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That is why the article is about a "myth" and not an aircraft. Everything about it is mythical, or at least apocryphal! - Ahunt (talk) 18:52, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Impressive! 

message: the article doesn't say what aurora is? what makes it special?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.180.194.3 (talk) 09:21, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The opening sentence says "Aurora was a rumored mid-1980s American reconnaissance aircraft." Does that not say what it is? - Ahunt (talk) 10:49, 9 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  what is it? 

message: Might evidence for Aurora's lack of existence, such as the failures of the X-43 and X-51 programs make a good section of this article?
NobodyMinus (talk) 23:14, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Only if you have refs that discuss the Aurora and not other, probably unrelated programs. - Ahunt (talk) 12:21, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Evidence to the contrary 

message: I can't tell you WHAT it was, but I can tell you they were flying SOMETHING over southern CA early on Wednesday mornings for a few weeks in late 1992. I lived there at the time and managed a small store. Right before dawn one morning, something rattled my windows. This being southern CA, I assumed it was an earthquake. I mentioned this later in the day to a customer at my store, and he said no, it's a plane of some sort they're testing -- it flies over on Wednesday mornings. While he hadn't seen the "donuts on a rope" contrail, he said a friend of his had. (yep, a friend of a friend!) Sure enough, the next two Wednesdays, at roughly the same time, the same thing happened: something rattled my windows. Then it stopped.
I said it was trivial! Something rattled windows a bit north of LA a few times in the early 90s. But, for what it's worth, that's what happened in this Wikipedia editor's personal experience. Not encyclopedic, of course, but I thought I'd throw it out there just for interest. Worldwalker (talk) 13:11, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: WP:NOTFORUM - Ahunt (talk) 15:10, 26 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: If you want your experience to be a citable source for Wikipedia, write it down somewhere, like in a newspaper, which will be a verifiable source.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 18:25, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personal experience (admittedly trivial and unspecific) 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Aurora (aircraft). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.aemann.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/aircraft/black/aurora/aurora5.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040114222420/http://www.aeronautics.ru:80/archive/vvs/from_pdf/aurora.htm to http://www.aeronautics.ru/archive/vvs/from_pdf/aurora.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080725123842/http://www.firstscience.com/site/articles/aurora.asp to http://www.firstscience.com/site/articles/aurora.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:30, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Aurora (aircraft). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070706051254/http://www.popsci.com/popsci/aviationspace/95e16f096bd8d010vgnvcm1000004eecbccdrcrd.html to http://www.popsci.com/popsci/aviationspace/95e16f096bd8d010vgnvcm1000004eecbccdrcrd.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for https://web.archive.org/web/20040114222420/http%3A//www.aeronautics.ru%3A80/archive/vvs/from_pdf/aurora.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:33, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Found some much better renders of the hypothetical craft made about a year ago by Rodrigo Avella on Behance. If permission can be granted from the rights holder, can one of the images be used as a replacement for the low quality one in the article? Not only are they higher quality, but I feel that they are more representative of what a current-gen aircraft design would be. https://www.behance.net/gallery/33912352/Aurora-Aircraft Wolven1 (talk) 06:40, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: The creator would basically have to release it under a free licence, as there is no justification for a  non-free image for this article. The easy way to have them do this is for them to upload it to commons themselves and indicate the licence. - Ahunt (talk) 12:45, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can these images be added if permission is granted from the creator of these images?   

message: The Aurora is very clearly the same aircraft, or line of aircraft, that are now declassified as the DARPA Falcon Project. Although the artist's conception given in the present Aurora-article is very misleading, the actual photographs and drawings that exist of the Aurora fit perfectly with the Falcon. The description of the Aurora by aviation experts as being built for hypersonic flight and using some sort of experimental ramjet also fits perfectly with the description of the very real Falcon. This can be seen in [|this documentary] - which is THE authoritative source on the Aurora, containing interviews with all key witnesses, but which is conspicuously not referenced in the present article. I tried to edit in a reference to this fact, but it was promptly removed by user:Ahunt, who is an officer in the US military. He dismissed referencing the main description of the Aurora as "original research". Very obviously this entire article is written to suit a US military narrative, and censorship like this is a disgrace to Wikipedia, and will forever taint its name. Fake news!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.209.63.246 (talk) 02:09, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: "user:Ahunt, who is an officer in the US military" - LOL, no I am not. If you check my user page you will see that I am a Canadian, never served in the US military. I removed your text because it was WP:OR, as I indicated. The You Tube link you provided is to a copyright violation version of an old documentary. For why we can't link to copyright violations see WP:COPYLINK. You can note that everything of substance mentioned in that documentary is already in the article, referenced to print sources. But let's get to your theory that a rumoured 1980s spyplane is the same as a 2000s reusable spacecraft. Where is your ref for that? The documentary certainly doesn't mention it. - Ahunt (talk) 13:20, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should be merged with the DARPA Falcon project, which is the current name for this plane 

message: Its was also called project Darkstar 103.226.236.201 (talk) 15:24, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a reference that says that? We have an article on Project Darkstar, but that is a video game and also Lockheed Martin RQ-3 DarkStar, which is probably what you are thinking of. - Ahunt (talk) 21:19, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Darkstar 

message: I have been told by an airfield worker who years ago (90s ?) working at Machrihanish Scotland, that the Aurora would arrive and depart at night time , the airfield was long enough to take the space shuttle, and the airfield lighting was installed with the shuttle in mind.
I also knew a retired mil radar op in the UK who told me he would be briefed when the Aurora would show on the scope. All this was years ago , it appears the Aurora had a short life. 2A00:23C7:7946:4D01:5070:3A3C:9967:47F4 (talk) 10:11, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so we don't deal in unsubstantiated rumours. You can note Wikipedia is not a forum for discussing vague rumours. Talk pages are only for suggesting improvements to the article and require citing reliable sources. - Ahunt (talk) 13:44, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aurora witnesses