It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Anyone heard of D R Boylan?

page: 1

log in


posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 03:40 PM

I want to know what our aircraft experts think of this. It looks real "Hoaxy" to me.

Please let me know what you all think/know about this.



posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 03:53 PM
DR. Boylan does not hold much water in his assumptions.
Example, his TR-3B AntiGravity aircraft is supposed to be an update to the TR-3A aircraft powered by..GE F-404 Not quiet anti-gravity there

posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 04:22 PM
Nice find Springer.Very interesting reading.I went to his hompage and looked at several pages and found some odd but interesting reading.Thanks for the link.
They also give his contact information on there if anyone would like to converse with him and find out more about what he does.

How To Contact Dr. Richard Boylan:


(E-mail is the preferred way to contact Dr. Boylan.)

Richard Boylan, Ph.D., Post Office Box 22310, Sacramento, California 95822, USA

(916) 422-7400 phone/voice mail
Phone is in USA's Pacific Time Zone = Greenwich Mean Time/Zulu minus 8 hours

posted on Sep, 16 2005 @ 10:35 PM
HAHAHA! I needed a good laugh!

This Dr.Boylan man, I would not trust him if I was paid to. Just because you have a Ph.D doesn't mean you're qualified to know EVERYTHING, even top secret military craft.

The biggest give away was when he started talking about the TR-3B being used as a weapon's platform to take out communication array. There was also the TR-3A "Pumpkinsee" which I have only heard it referred to as that one other time, and it's just plain wrong, it's the TR-3A Black Manta.

The Nautilus I have heard of, and was a real project but it never took off the drawing boards, why you may ask? Well, because the US just didn't have a need for it, I mean, there is no secret space station up in space that has been sitting there for 30 years, not only is it economically inefficient, it's redundant to have something like that and keep it secret.

Also, he began confusing the TR-3B with the LRV(Lentrical Reentry Vehicle). The two are completely and totally different. The TR-3B isn't nuclear powered, nor is it equipped with Anti-Gravity, he also explaimed how the B-2 was part of the anti-gravity fleet, all I have to ask is, What anti-gravity?

The TR-3B uses a highly advanced magnetic field distortion propulsion system and uses advanced inertial dampeners to lighten its actual weight down to 80 percent. No, the TR-3A is not capable of Mach 50 travel, I have never heard of a craft performing Mach 50, nor can I think of an application for a Mach 50 aircraft. Faster is better, but there is such a thing as going to fast, and Mach 50 overruns it a million times.

And for the Nautilus, the contractors are total BS, why would Boeing cooperate with the EU Airbus corporation(which is a commercial contractor, no military that I know of) to build a craft that can break orbit and go to a Space Station in high orbit for the united states? What would Airbus care? How would it help Airbus? It made more sense to say it was a joint project between Northrop, Boeing, and Lockheed than say Boeing and Airbus.

Seriously, all of this guy's information is just outlandish, it doesn't even come close to being reasonable.

What a load this Dr. Boylan is.

Shattered OUT...

top topics

log in