TR-3B nuclear powered flying triangle

Originally posted by waynos
It is my belief that the oft reported flying triangles are unmanned drones, be they prototypes for such as X-47 or Polecat etc, or even hitherto unannounced but operational types and that the stories of mysterious propulsion systems and magical properties are just additional layers of mythology that get added in the telling and retelling.

OK thanks, if you had said "stealth" I would have known what that meant, I'm not indoctrinated into the alphabet soup jargon, so thanks for the clarification.

I think the magical properties like unbelievable flight performance characteristics can result from simple misperception issues. Those never seem to show up in any videos.

This is the only known video (at about 40 seconds) of the triangle shaped lights that flew over Phoenix around 8:30pm (not the flares at 10pm), and the performance looks quite mundane in spite of some witnesses claiming otherwise:

dsc.discovery.com...

Originally posted by neformore

Originally posted by Bobbox1980
Are you going on record then that the Belgium Incident of 1989-1990 was an alien spaceship?

You make of that what you will. I think you can figure out where I think it came from....

Yeah. Roughly 50 years in the future. Somehow it got involved in a timeslip or something and showed up in our reality about 50 years in the past. It was probably pretty surprising to the pilots, but it wouldn't be the first time it happened. Hopefully they made it home in one piece, though we'll never know.

I've said it before countless times, and I'll say it again:

The problem with "It's a prototype for some advanced technology and/or propulsion system" argument is rather simple:

There are millions upon millions of square miles of empty ocean airspace to test that stuff out over. If it buggers up, it goes in the drink and likely will find its way under a few miles of water (which may as well be an orbit around Pluto). Sure - you don't get it back, but no one else does, either - you've still got the drawing board.

You don't test this stuff over cities. If you put it against your own air defense systems (or those of other nations), you don't do it near cities.

Think about the real black projects that have gone on - the F-117, B-2, etc. There were reports of strange triangle aircraft flying over the Nevada desert - not Houston, Berlin, etc. Why? Because -God forbid- if the thing fell out of the sky, you don't want your top secret project's public debut to consist of it smashing through an apartment complex and half a dozen people running off with souvenirs made of pre-market classified technologies. You have any idea what even our allies (like Britain) would have paid for some of that stuff? Enough that many people would seriously consider it - got a family to feed and dreams to pursue.

So - WHATEVER is the source of many of these types of sightings and reports - it's not following the type of protocol we (and many other military powers) place on our black projects.

I would be surprised if an ET intelligence would be so careless with its equipment - but intelligence may be a relative term. The last thing they need is to give us the keys to the car, so to speak. Once we obtain practical space flight - we're going, and in a hurry. I'm not sure whether or not they care - but since they don't seem to be in much of a hurry to share that ability with us, I think they've probably decided it is not in their interest to.

So - I'm of the opinion that we're dealing with some poorly organized aliens (by all metrics we understand - perhaps knowing their motive would then allow us to understand why they would take such risks) or it is some very odd natural phenomena.

I don't know - perhaps its the equivalent of some alien teenagers taking their dad's car out for a joy-ride or something - or cow-tipping (perhaps we have something in common with them after all, a fascination with terrorizing bovine herds).

In any case, it doesn't really read like a black-project undertaking. It's too haphazard, too public, and just doesn't seem to be consistent with the goals of testing, transporting, or utilizing any 'secret' military aircraft.

I saw one of these yesterday. It convinced me to join. The thing looked like a pulsating star or a planet at first, but I noticed that it vanished after about 9:30pm every night it appeared.

Last night I saw it start pulsating heavily, and then it moved. Just slightly, and I could see it was very far away from my house. Then it accelerated, rapidly. The thing was amazingly fast. it moved near my house and I saw it, a black triangular "plane" with a series of lights, all flashing in different colours.

I'm quite sure that it's military though, there's a large air base in the area (South Australia.) Still strange though, there's nothing like seeing it for yourself. The triangular part was almost invisible, and the way it was disguised as a star was amazing.

reply to post by Avarice


In all honesty, I doubt it's a military aircraft. While the U.S. is known to operate out of some bases in Australia - top secret aircraft, would not. That would then have to mean Australia had one of their own craft like this.... we won't share the F-22 with other countries - which, according to the testimony of what these things can do, is far less capable.

Which would lead me to believe that it is not representative of any known military or political faction.

Again - what little evidence is videotaped doesn't lead me to believe it's a military craft (or, at least, not our military), and the witness testimonies, locations, etc just don't stack up to something that we would have secretly developed and fly around in the sky.

Don't get me wrong - we have some pretty cool toys that are in development, I'm sure. The thing is, however, they are secret for a reason. So we are not going to fly them around and exhibit them to the world for people to rush off to the internet and show off video footage of the craft that was deliberately and exhaustively kept secret.

Aim the US always operates its most sophisticated aircraft out of foreign nations. The U2 flew from Pakistan and Europe as did the SR-71, F-117, B-2 and every other craft I can think of.

reply to post by danwild6


There have been a few times, yes, that we have operated aircraft out of foreign countries - on U.S./NATO bases. Germany, Italy, and Spain come to mind. Usually, though, the more 'secret' stuff gets operated out of U.S. territory - Guam, for example.

However, the F-117 was about ten years old before its existence was declassified, and only then did it operate out of any other airbase but Holloman and Tonopah.

The B-2 was declassified pretty much as the first model finished production and assigned to the 509th at Whiteman. They pretty much operate exclusively out of Whiteman, Guam, Diego Garcia, and an RAF airfield - though this has as much to do with the aircraft's maintenance requirements as anything else.

Which, again - Why would one of these 'top secret US planes' be be-bopping about in Australia? As far as I know - we aren't at war with anyone over there. There's no mission to be had for such an aircraft. I suppose it could be a method of testing air defense systems - manned or unmanned - but that's a great way to land yourself in hot water.

It just doesn't fit the profile of a U.S. military aircraft, space craft, or whatever. It doesn't fit the profile of a drone project, a balloon project, or anything that any military would undertake. It's haphazard, reckless, and hardly very secretive.

Think about it a minute - how often do you see a B-2 fly over your house? I see one at least once a week - I live just down highway 50 from Knob Knoster - essentially Whiteman AFB (the town there may as well be considered part of the base). But you don't see them flying over New York unless there's an air show. You don't see them flying over Houston. You don't see B-1s or B-52s flying around all that often, either (unless they are flying at air shows) - but those things are in the air a lot. Not only do they fly around and divert for air shows, they also just fly to keep from making any one air base from having too much strategic value, keeping nuclear weapons in limbo and more difficult for foreign intel to track, etc (you really think that whole deal about those nuclear weapons being transported a few years back was really an accident? - Someone just buggered up somehow and got crucified for it - nothing like politics).

You don't see them because we fly them very high up in the sky, and don't go joyriding over the city where everyone can see.

Period.

I'm not saying a craft that behaves like the stuff people report seeing does not exist - just saying that whoever/whatever built it likely have very little to no affiliation, association, or connections with any nation's military.

I know that recently declassified material from Britain suggests that the British believe the US was flying secret craft out of RAF bases leased and operated by the USAF.

EDIT: after reading your reply I still decided to post this even though you already stated as such previously, yeah its Friday

[edit on 9-7-2010 by danwild6]

reply to post by danwild6


I can imagine that any unauthorized operation out of a U.S. leased base/field/hangar would be quite temporary.

Landing secret planes in a base surrounded by the military of another nation (even if they are friendly) can turn into a bad idea if they decide it is worth 'accepting such a gracious gift.'

I'd have to look at the reports, but I believe what they would be referring to would be aircraft that were part of classified projects/operations and/or were testing special 'restricted access' equipment. There are plenty of C-130s flying around out there with all kinds of non-standard equipment.

That's another part of the 'secret world of aviation.' If it looks like 'just another damned transport' - it doesn't look like anything of interest. Even better if you can fit it inside of a business jet airframe or something that appears like it would have even less potential value (even a cargo transport might be carrying something interesting).

It's not like the RAF would somehow not notice a B-2, F-117 or legendary 'TR-3B' type aircraft landing at its airports and taxiing over to the U.S. leased end of the airport. I know there are some pretty incompetent air traffic controllers out there who couldn't tell you a piper cub from a 747 - but someone would have to catch on that the U.S. was using the base for aircraft other than what was permitted on the leasing papers.

Good tenants are just hard to come by these days, .

I could see that one, now...

*B-2 is taxiing into the hangar in the background* "I'm sorry, Colonel, we're going to have to confiscate that contraband."

"... I'm sorry?"

"Your lease contract CLEARLY states you are not to have any other aircraft on the base other than those listed, without getting clearance from the Prime Minister."

"You're kidding... why did you clear it to land?"

"Hey, don't blame me, you are the one who brought valuable contraband onto the base, then get upset when it gets confiscated."

"The President is going to love this..."

"Love what? This aircraft is supposed to be still undergoing upgrades at Plant 42. You will get it back once it is scheduled to return to service."

- Why we don't operate secret aircraft out of foreign bases very often. Lease/contract technicalities can be substituted for a few hundred armed men with light armor support (can also be used to enforce lease technicalities if applicable).

reply to post by ShatteredSkies


my god I cant stand this mind block no nothing within the system no nothings that are here they have ships far more advanced than tr3b 20 years ago when you see you engineers here 1000 foot ufos with your limited ideas of engineering saying ;;they cant do that this is et;; you again will be fooled I suppose you will have to all suffer for your stupidity

Originally posted by lasthope
reply to post by ShatteredSkies

 

my god I cant stand this mind block no nothing within the system no nothings that are here they have ships far more advanced than tr3b 20 years ago when you see you engineers here 1000 foot ufos with your limited ideas of engineering saying ;;they cant do that this is et;; you again will be fooled I suppose you will have to all suffer for your stupidity

I don't know which relegates your post to "not worthy of reasoned discussion" more - the extremely poor grammar, the extremely poor and excessive punctuation, the pointless attack at the end, or the content itself.

reply to post by wtfhuh

The Propulsion system includes a large area inside the ship, where ionized particles and isotopes revolve around the center, at a good 60,000 RPM. This is enough to provide a Magnetic Field Distortion, this is very impractical propulsion, because it is very difficult to produce. The system is highly advanced, and I can barely understand it's workings, so I may be wrong on some information.

...They are actually called toroidal plasma magnetic confinement devices or RFP's. Some of the most expensive r&d projects in the world, many billions of dollars... ITER, currently being build to the tune of 7.5+ billion dollars.

Your post got me thinking. Perhaps Tokamaks are being built to research and improve the interstellar FTL drives in the Naval Space Command's inventory. Perhaps fusion research is a cover story.

It is mentioned in Robert Bussard's wiki entry that when he and fellow fusion researchers were pushing to get government money to fund their research that the Tokamak research was more politically feasible to the DoE (Dept of Energy) than his Polywell research. Bussard implies that this was just the DoE looking for big projects but perhaps they wanted to build Tokamaks for propulsion research and this was why Tokamaks were more politically feasible to the DoE.

Why would the DoE be unwilling to fund the Polywell research to the tune of a couple million per polywell fusor versus being willing to fund tokamak research to the tune of several billion per tokamak? Bussard implied that the tokamak was perceived as less likely to produce usable fusion for power generation than the polywell.

It just does not add up unless the DoE needed a cover story for building tokamaks.

[edit on 16-8-2010 by Bobbox1980]

Originally posted by danwild6
I know that recently declassified material from Britain suggests that the British believe the US was flying secret craft out of RAF bases leased and operated by the USAF.

EDIT:

after reading your reply I still decided to post this even though you already stated as such previously, yeah its Friday

[edit on 9-7-2010 by danwild6]

Just to add to this sorry if it has been mentioned the SR-71 Blackbirds operated out of RAF/USAF Mildenhall in Suffolk, UK. The town of Mildenhall is now more than 1-2 miles from the base

I think its now an air re-fuelling wing, 100th Air Re-Fuelling Wing or 110th something like that

[edit on 17-8-2010 by ThePeaceMaker]

[edit on 17-8-2010 by ThePeaceMaker]

Originally posted by Bobbox1980

Your post got me thinking. Perhaps Tokamaks are being built to research and improve the interstellar FTL drives in the Naval Space Command's inventory. Perhaps fusion research is a cover story.

It is mentioned in Robert Bussard's wiki entry that when he and fellow fusion researchers were pushing to get government money to fund their research that the Tokamak research was more politically feasible to the DoE (Dept of Energy) than his Polywell research. Bussard implies that this was just the DoE looking for big projects but perhaps they wanted to build Tokamaks for propulsion research and this was why Tokamaks were more politically feasible to the DoE.

Why would the DoE be unwilling to fund the Polywell research to the tune of a couple million per polywell fusor versus being willing to fund tokamak research to the tune of several billion per tokamak? Bussard implied that the tokamak was perceived as less likely to produce usable fusion for power generation than the polywell.

It just does not add up unless the DoE needed a cover story for building tokamaks.

And in turn your post got me thinking...

Unfortunately, you are taking what is written on Wikipedia as plain and true gospel, and trying to make it make sense - there is no real evidence that Bussards approach is any better than tokamak research than Bussards own conclusions, and they are fairly well disputed in the industry anyway.

Why should the DoE need a cover story for anything? They themselves hold some of the highest classification ratings issued, for everything from fusion research to nuclear weapons research, they do not need cover stories for anything.

reply to post by RichardPrice

Unfortunately, you are taking what is written on Wikipedia as plain and true gospel, and trying to make it make sense - there is no real evidence that Bussards approach is any better than tokamak research than Bussards own conclusions, and they are fairly well disputed in the industry anyway.

I've got to disagree with you there on multiple fronts. The Farnsworth Fusor is pretty much where human developed fusion research got its birth. The biggest problem this type of fusion faced was grid collisions. Bussard's Polywell fusor is based off the Farnsworth but fixes this key grid collision problem.

The fact that the Polywell costs millions while the tokamaks cost billions, all things being equal if they both lead to real fusion power, would mean the Polywell is definitely the better system.

Did you read the letter Bussard wrote to Congress about the situation? In it he says:

Currently the DoE monopolizes all work in fusion energy. It supports several federally-controlled laboratories (including some at major universities. e.g. Princeton), and rigidly directs all R&D effort in the field. Its program structure and control of resources effectively suppresses all incentive for private work in this field; who will ‘compete’ with the federal government?* Unfortunately, the path followed by the DoE is almost certainly not ever going to give the nation any safe, technically viable, or economically useful fusion power plants or systems.

The DoE commitment to very large fusion concepts (the giant magnetic tokamak) ensures only the need for very large budgets; and that is what the program has been about for the past 15 years - a defense-of-budget program, not a fusion-achievement program. As one of three people who created this program in the early 1970’s (when I was an Assistant Director of the AEC’s Controlled Thermonuclear Reaction Division) I know this to be true; we raised the budget in order to take 20% off the top of the larger funding, to try all of the hopeful new things that the mainline labs would not try.

Each of us left soon thereafter, and the second generation management thought the big program was real: it was not. Ever since then, the ERDA/DoE has rolled Congress to increase and/or continue big-budget support...

Why should the DoE need a cover story for anything? They themselves hold some of the highest classification ratings issued, for everything from fusion research to nuclear weapons research, they do not need cover stories for anything.

Even the DoE has to get its budgets passed by Congress. When going before Congress to ask for several billion dollars to fund a Tokamak Congress is going to ask about the purpose of that Tokamak. What would the DoE say if as I suspect it was a propulsion research program rather than a fusion research program?

Furthermore what would the DoE tell foreign countries it works with in building these tokamaks or what would it tell the public when they are digging up the countryside building billion dollar tokamaks like ITER?

I am not saying that tokamaks will never lead to real fusion power or that the DoE wasn't interested in hiring scientists to develop and work on tokamaks for fusion research, I just think fusion research was not the primary purpose of the tokamak program.

If reports by Ning Li, patents by Henry William Wallace, and the TR3B story turn out to be true then I do not think the tokamak program's primary purpose was fusion, I think it was propulsion. A tokamak circulating atoms of plasma around it should cause the nuclear spin of the atoms of plasma to align and produce a gravity-like acceleration field if Wallace and Li were correct.

reply to post by M43


what does TR3 stand for does it mean Triangular 3 (for the 3 thrusters?) and the B is that for Bu***it .. Just wondering?

Ran across this... from 1998

Edgar Fouche talks about the TR-3B. Must watch 7 part video presentation
www.tr-3b.com...



www.youtube.com...

Now this is interesting because it seems Ed Fouche has resurfaced and is again speaking on the TR 3B

The complete unabridged document of the FULL disclosure made by Edgar Fouche
www.alienscientist.com...

Since posting from other forums is a no no, I can't post the text where Ed says he can fully document his work at Area 51 etc. I would like to see that documentation (haven't had a chance to even look yet) but here is a post on his youtube channel 1 week ago

I have been off-line or unavailable for over 10 years. My birth name does not have Rothschild on it. My grandmother’s great grandmother was a Rothschild and they were poor farmers in the mid-west. During the development of my book ‘Alien Rapture’, this came up in a conversation. They suggested that I use Rothschild as a selling point. I did not know anything about the Rothschilds or the evil they have done. I seriously regret using the name now. I have never known a Rothschild. Ed Fouche

So since I have not looked into this to deep yet... I await the usual ATS diligence in sorting this out.

Following is a description of the drive system by Ed on AlienScientist...

The TR-3B vehicle's outer coating is reactive to electrical Radar stimulation and can change reflectiveness, radar absorptiveness, and color. This polymer skin, when used in conjunction with the TR-3Bs Electronic Counter Measures and, ECCM, can make the vehicle look like a small aircraft, or a flying cylinder--or even trick radar receivers into falsely detecting a variety of aircraft, no aircraft, or several aircraft at various locations. A circular, plasma filled accelerator ring called the Magnetic Field Disrupter, surrounds the rotatable crew compartment and is far ahead of any imaginable technology. Sandia and Livermore laboratories developed the reverse engineered MFD technology. The government will go to any lengths to protect this technology. The plasma, mercury based, is pressurized at 250,000 atmospheres at a temperature of 150 degrees Kelvin and accelerated to 50,000 rpm to create a super-conductive plasma with the resulting gravity disruption. The MFD generates a magnetic vortex field, which disrupts or neutralizes the effects of gravity on mass within proximity, by 89 percent. Do not misunderstand. This is not antigravity. Anti-gravity provides a repulsive force that can be used for propulsion. The MFD creates a disruption of the Earth's gravitational field upon the mass within the circular accelerator. The mass of the circular accelerator and all mass within the accelerator, such as the crew capsule, avionics, MFD systems, fuels, crew environmental systems, and the nuclear reactor, are reduced by 89%. This causes the effect of making the vehicle extremely light and able to outperform and outmaneuver any craft yet constructed--except, of course, those UFOs we did not build. The TR-3B is a high altitude, stealth, reconnaissance platform with an indefinite loiter time. Once you get it up there at speed, it doesn't take much propulsion to maintain altitude.

www.alienscientist.com...


And here is a piece about the nuclear thermal rocket engine that uses hydrogen and oxygen as propellant..

At Groom Lake their have been whispered Rumors of a new element that acts as a catalyst to the plasma. With the vehicle mass reduced by 89%, the craft can travel at Mach 9, vertically or horizontally. My sources say the performance is limited only the stresses that the human pilots can endure. Which is a lot, really, considering along with the 89% reduction in mass, the G forces are also reduced by 89%. The crew of the TR-3B should be able to comfortable take up to 40Gs. The TR-3Bs propulsion is provided by 3 multimode thrusters mounted at each bottom corner of the triangular platform. The TR-3 is a sub-Mach 9 vehicle until it reaches altitudes above l20,000 feet--then God knows how fast it can go! The 3 multimode rocket engines mounted under each corner of the craft use hydrogen or methane and oxygen as a propellent. In a liquid oxygen/hydrogen rocket system, 85% of the propellent mass is oxygen. The nuclear thermal rocket engine uses a hydrogen propellent, augmented with oxygen for additional thrust. The reactor heats the liquid hydrogen and injects liquid oxygen in the supersonic nozzle, so that the hydrogen burns concurrently in the liquid oxygen afterburner

www.alienscientist.com...

Thoughts?

It might be the case that the TR-3B's are stationed in orbit around the Earth and Moon (no gravitational distortion required, no nuclear contamination of the Earth either. Or perhaps many of the triangles and saucers are actually aeroships. Finally, why has nobody ever spotted flying pentagons, hexagons, or octogons before? Is that merely for lack of human imagination? Do people not realize that hexagons make the best shape for spaceplanes yet?

really cool shape from battletank

www.int.gu.edu.au...