Big Flying Triangle . New York Mills . 10.5.2020

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Ophiuchus1

That's not how designations work. Good try though.....

Thx! ...

Although I was being.... facetious in my previous post...

So thanks for your breakdown and if I understood you correctly as well as what’s explained below....

T = Trainer
R = Reconnaissance

and then the 3 could = Tier III - High altitude, long endurance, low observable

and then the B could = Bomber

Much more reasonable.... also to be a “B” bomber over an “A” attack or “F” fighter aircraft especially for deep stealth penetration is a better fit. I would then suspect that the bomb payload is new tech and it’s method of release from the aircraft may not be conventional.... hmm, interesting

There is no such thing as a TR3B. It is disinfo they made up to distract from the EBE triangles.

a reply to: Ophiuchus1

That's ok, there was a little bit of sarcasm with the good try, so we're even.

The B after the designation is actually the model. The first model is A, the second is B, etc. In the case of fighters, a B and D designation after the number, such as F-15B or F-15D, denotes a two seat version. In the case of large aircraft, there are systems upgrades, and possibly different engines and avionics involved. In some aircraft, usually large aircraft, telling the difference between models can be very difficult. The E-3 Sentry for example. The E-3C, and the E-3G are pretty much identical on the outside, but quite a bit different internally. Then you get into the fun of Block numbers, but that's not something that really matters here.

The problem with the TR-3 is that the alleged TR-3A, and the alleged TR-3B are completely different airframes.

TR-3A:



TR-3B:



That's not how it works. Going from A to B is not going from one aircraft type to another, it's going from steam gauges to a glass cockpit, faster computers, etc.

originally posted by: spiritualarchitect
There is no such thing as a TR3B. It is disinfo they made up to distract from the EBE triangles.

Do you not think it’s plausible both EBE’s and the Gov to have versions of triangle craft? or that the Gov has reversed engineered crashed EBE triangle(s) to develop our own?

The TR could be the next step in the evolution of our stealth aircraft. I suspect it could be that a fully tested operational triangle (flying wing as old timer aeronautical folks might see it) will have a different, modified, designation for full missions service.

Remember that in days of old we use to designate advanced aircraft being developed and tested with the designation X-##

With pomp and circumstance it will debut much like the B-2 and F-117A did.... the opening of the hanger doors and rollout to media and fan fare.... ta da!

Hope I live long enough to see it 😉

Jack Northrop and the Horten Brothers and Alexander Lippisch visions continue......

originally posted by: Blue Shift
Not a bad shot, if real. Hard to get footage of these things. Got a nice shot of the little power thing in the center. Tried brightness and contrast to bring out more details, but it didn't work. Anyway.

www.mufoncms.com...

Below looks to be the same triangle (or second one) done in 2008

Could this be the same hoaxter? Having lived in PA and then moved to NY? or just visiting years later? Cousin Betsy perhaps...

Or a wrench got thrown into my effort to collaborate the debunking? given the Twitter hoaxter with balloon kite supposedly shown?

Both vids also shows that line (what could be the back of the craft) of smaller lights (3)

It’s a head scratcher for sure

In the absence of the Mufon written report to draw from.....this is my pessimistic suspicion.

This comparison below shows me that the Mufon vid was actually taken from the 2008 vid....my guess.... the 2008 PA vid was ripped off and editing filter tools were used for enhancements manipulation by the perp to then submit for Mufon....Mufon meanwhile accepts it as being videoed in NY, without due diligence to see if the vid was, ever videoed before.

Now of course, if the submitted NY video to Mufon is dated before the 2008 PA vid... either way ... I think it to be the same vid footage with changes.



Mufon

originally posted by: Ophiuchus1
In the absence of the Mufon written report to draw from.....this is my pessimistic suspicion.

This comparison below shows me that the Mufon vid was actually taken from the 2008 vid....my guess.... the 2008 PA vid was ripped off and editing filter tools were used for enhancements manipulation by the perp to then submit for Mufon....Mufon meanwhile accepts it as being videoed in NY, without due diligence to see if the vid was, ever videoed before.

It wouldn't surprise me. MUFON has very little money and things are uploaded to them all the time by random people, some of whom are just fooling around because they're bored. They don't have the time or resources to investigate them quickly, and certainly not all of them.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Ophiuchus1

The problem with the TR-3 is that the alleged TR-3A, and the alleged TR-3B are completely different airframes.

TR-3A:

TR-3B:

Below is an observation whereby the Teledyne Ryan’s dual fuselage fins (tail fins) and overall delta wing (triangle) are aerodynamic design elements as used for the TR-3A artist rendition above....but also in combination with using the center exotic propulsion system for the TR-3B artist rendition without the fuselage fins (tail fins) in the rendition version above.

The night TR3 version shown below from near Paris, appears to use the combination of the familiar delta wing (triangle), dual fuselage fins (tail fins), and a center exotic propulsion system. I read where the TR3 is possibly a dual propulsion craft. The three corners of the triangle being conventional but advanced thrusters which are for lower Mach speeds....

a reply to: Ophiuchus1

Then we get into the designation fun. TR, contrary to popular belief has absolutely nothing to do with Teledyne Ryan. Teledyne Ryan didn't make large or exotic aircraft for years. They went to building almost exclusively target drones after WWII.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Ophiuchus1

Then we get into the designation fun. TR, contrary to popular belief has absolutely nothing to do with Teledyne Ryan. Teledyne Ryan didn't make large or exotic aircraft for years. They went to building almost exclusively target drones after WWII.

Ok... I’m aware of their drone history......let’s forget about designations for a moment... what’s your opinion on from a working proof of concept delta flying wing model to the similarity of the flying triangle in the night pictures..not including the propulsion systems....

Just adding in artist illustrator John Berky’s Stealth triangles....



And from James A. Bryant

originally posted by: Ophiuchus1

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Ophiuchus1

The problem with the TR-3 is that the alleged TR-3A, and the alleged TR-3B are completely different airframes.

TR-3A:

TR-3B:

Below is an observation whereby the Teledyne Ryan’s dual fuselage fins (tail fins) and overall delta wing (triangle) are aerodynamic design elements as used for the TR-3A artist rendition above....but also in combination with using the center exotic propulsion system for the TR-3B artist rendition without the fuselage fins (tail fins) in the rendition version above.

The night TR3 version shown below from near Paris, appears to use the combination of the familiar delta wing (triangle), dual fuselage fins (tail fins), and a center exotic propulsion system. I read where the TR3 is possibly a dual propulsion craft. The three corners of the triangle being conventional but advanced thrusters which are for lower Mach speeds....

tom is that you?

Tom D of TTSA used the same 'evidence'

originally posted by: penroc3

tom is that you?

Tom D of TTSA used the same 'evidence'

If little tommy used my compilation collage that I put together exactly as shown.....then that lil bastard ripped me.....I’m flattered and insulted at the same time .....he stole my ip, if that’s the case. I demand royalties!!! Why I outta.....ehhh wise guy!

EDIT... I’ll save Mo and the eyes poke for some other time 🍺

a reply to: Ophiuchus1

the French night vision 'footage' was proved a fake along time ago.


im not saying exotic craft dont exist but a target drone maker and a fake CG clip is not proof .....


Tom D i BELIVE is coming from a good place but is very very gullible and useable

you should look into when the government used MUFONS major player to spy and when they drove a avid UFO and US contractor insane named Paul Bennewitz. there is a book called 'PROJECT BETA' and it is very god book including a book by Gabe Valdez's son on on all the so called mutilation's and the US governments roll in that.

originally posted by: penroc3
a reply to: Ophiuchus1

the French night vision 'footage' was proved a fake along time ago.


im not saying exotic craft dont exist but a target drone maker and a fake CG clip is not proof .....


Tom D i BELIVE is coming from a good place but is very very gullible and useable

you should look into when the government used MUFONS major player to spy and when they drove a avid UFO and US contractor insane named Paul Bennewitz. there is a book called 'PROJECT BETA' and it is very god book including a book by Gabe Valdez's son on on all the so called mutilation's and the US governments roll in that.

Not finding project beta in a free pdf book form....but instead, I’ll opt for watching his story in vid

Project Beta - The Paul Bennewitz Story - by Greg Bishop - Feb 28, 2006 - International UFO Congress


As for the French cgi clip... ok fake, got it.... however, I like the coincidence of using the angled dual tail fins. So often you see posts of triangles in vids and pics... but almost never do you see the topside of one... usually it’s a bottom view.

Thx