Originally posted by Gazrok
Unless you work on the TR-3B, I doubt you KNOW anything of it. There is plenty we SUSPECT about it, but we don't KNOW anything about it. Based on
what we SUSPECT to be true about the TR-3B, it seems to fit the sighting, especially allowing for the idea of invalid radar readings as we KNOW that
some US craft do have means of evading and interfering with radar. Does that mean it is a TR-3B? No, not necessarily, but most of us were suggesting
it as a LIKELY candidate, not stating it as FACT.
quote: Transcript of Dr. Steven Greer's Interview
While I applaud Mr. Greer's efforts, he also often tends to believe the whack-job cases a bit too often also... For example, his endorsement of the
fraud Billy Meier.
Who mentioned anything about Billy Meir? I know all about the campaign againsy himand his photos and have no comment on the matter..other than to say
no one has yet explained how he faked the metal samples..
But MY point was..and still is..that in order to buy the idea that these super-secret, experimental, black-budget-funded and highly expensive,
vehicles all presumed by some to be working on anti-gravity principles you'd have to believe that this technology is not being shared with NASA,
and our closest allies ..AND..that it makes sense to deploy these super-secret, highly sensitive aircraft over highly populated territory to hover,
zoom, flash bright lights and scare armed fighter pilots of friendly forces to death...that it was done without warnign said gov'ts and
friendlies..and that the fllights over said territories and cities served some national security interest.
How does making headline news, and not having a credible cover story to go qo with it add up in your mind to a reasonable thing to do..a plausible
If you were a commander of a black op , would you let it make headline news..would you allow a NATO ally to come out and hold a press conference
proviiding, not just spectacular statements from the pilots and ground witnesses, but also the radar transcripts?
I'm asking anyone on ATS who claims to have had military training and a top-secret clearance...does this make sense to you?
Here's the latest and best we have on TR-3B's and their ilk..you tell me if they could be mistaken for anything as large as battleships..or if it
is even contemplated that they could, by some great new anti-gravity technique, be confused with what was captured on radar screens.
Oh..and here's another TR3B most of yuou would be too young to remember:
BTW..just how do the pilots sustain the G-forces of such acceleration without passing out..or is someone suggesting these are unmanned vehicles?
In order to support the theory that we make these vehicles and they fly by anti-gravity you would have to find some technical papers somewhere
outlining the concept or putting forth a proto-type/design.
It would be in scientific journals or university websites..as so much of the theoretical sciences and breakthroughs are...there would have to be
something in the annals that made the funding of these projects reasonable...and scientists would have been co-opted, on the basis of their PUBLISHED
papers..to work on these projects..be it from academia, or the aeronautics trade..and there is none of that to be found anywhere.
So it seems apparent to me that these rumours of secret earth made and controlled vehicles are just CYA stories and that money is channeled to some
folks to make a mock up of something that could maybe explain what witnesses were seeing.
And quite frankly...the only possible gain I could see in taking such foolhardy chances as to risk losing vehicles flying by super-secret anti-gravity
principles over unfreindly , or densely populated civilian areas would be to evaluate the civilian reaction to it all...so instead of black ops we're
We just lost 31 marines in a helicopter over flat desert..a helicopter mind you..and you seriously believe we'd risk giving away our super-secret
technology in an accident, overseas, in foreign territory?
I mean, really...which story is more implausible..the belgian air force [for which their is evidence] or this CYA stuff [for which there is NO