reply to post by zorgon
Well for a spook you miss the point a lot... LSWONE works 'in the field' I really do love your posts... but sometimes I wonder your
motives... You mention Lazar who has been out of the circuit for some time. But it is Ed Fouche who is presenting the TR3-B not me so perhaps your
words would be better placed there
My motives are simple - to challenge the claims and support of the TR-3B. I'll go ahead and let a little of my conceited self-image out and say I'm
something of a 'prodigy.' Society has never like me much, other than to exploit me - and I've never had much love for society or the little tales
people seem to tell to try and make me impressed with them. It's one thing to make your job or experience sound more solid and well-versed than it
actually has been - it's another to completely make things up. It's my nature to put people and their stories under the microscope and
cross-examine with extreme prejudice. It's a psychological defense mechanism derived from learning people would pretend to like me just to tease me
or exploit me for the answer to a question (or, later, in the adult world, for ideas and solutions to problems).
Strangely, for someone who generally distrusts people - I voluntarily talk to them a lot. I've yet to develop a theory that satisfies the
So - when someone comes to me with stories of "what I got to do at work today" and it involves all kinds of awesome-sauce secret technology - I'm
generally skeptical. Such as Lazar.
The connection I was attempting to make between Lazar and Fouche is that both proposed (at the time) mechanics of a system that were beyond the
ability to verify - but were not so hideously an affront to known physics to be dismissed off-hand. Many portions of Lazar's claims have since been
capable of being put to the test - and have failed (stability of element 115 among them). While his claim of an "island of stability" turned out to
be correct - it was also a theory put forth by more than a few nuclear physicists - though Lazar took the idea to the extremes.
The connection to Fouche is the claim that this device uses plasma - another big-splash area of physics that we can look forward to seeing a lot of
news about over the next decade. The claims cannot be tested directly or indirectly through comparison to related research. That doesn't make him
completely wrong - but it is a running trend among the "I worked with aliens" crowd.
Perhaps that is all a distrusting, anti-social person like me needs to raise the red flag and call BS. However - I can tell you, the times I have
ignored that analytical instinct of mine, it's come back to bite me in the rear because I trusted people who I knew (but didn't want to believe)
were giving me a song and dance. Not that I don't enjoy performances and acting as a form of entertainment - but I prefer it be communicated and
understood that it is such.
Now when did I say I browse at SiPRNET
Let me find the quote...
I don't look in public areas I lurk around .mil site
Explicitly implied you had -direct- access to privileged information.
You mean at nic dot mil? Nah thought never crossed my mind
Referenced a NIPR site related to network service/security for the DoD and then used a phrase many people would take as sarcasm (considering the site
was never mentioned).
Thanks... been there several times.. have a different door though... They did close the 'enterprise' link though
Again implied -direct- access to privileged information.
I do however have contacts who do have such access
But now you've encountered someone who actually knows how the military does things, and now take the pressure off of yourself. You do it either
consciously or unconsciously (people used to making up stories do it unconsciously and without regard for their own personal identity).
I'm a low-man on the totem pole. I just pay attention when they give us death-by-powerpoint about network security and "For God's sake, stop
losing laptops and flash drives with personnel records on them, already!" Not to mention - all of this information is available through public
Now about that CAC card you have, mind if I see it? I mean after all anyone could create something like that good enough to pass off on the
Yes, let me photo-copy my military ID. Sounds like a great idea. If we were in person, I'd have no problem - however, ORM and OpSEC would suggest
it's a bad idea to photo-copy my ID and even privately message it to someone.
Every military ID has one. Every person in the military has encryption certificates on their CAC for access to NIPR and their own signed e-mail.
Most NIPR simply involves billeting (CMSID), personnel management (BUPERS), and record management (NSIPS - though I think that one is Navy-specific).
And I only have access to my records (or, admin personnel can have access to admin functions, obviously).
not that I doubt you, BTW, but as you say anyone with a little smarts can build a good story and find many facts in documents to support it.
Funny thing is I have someone that has the same name as me, about the same age as me, who works at Lockheed Martin skunkworks and holds several secret
patents... I only found out due to a confusion of names when someone wrote me. Now how cool is that?
Pretty cool, I suppose.
Oh yes without a doubt... but the BIG question is WHO is disinfo and who is trying to leak out some good info? With all the in fighting and
calling each others stories BS how do you even begin to sort it all out?
The simple solution is to apply Occam's Razor. The more presumptions musts be made, the higher probability of being incorrect. It's a concept that
has been used and abused - but just states what should be common sense. If you have to go "out on a limb" to believe a story - don't believe
The problem with much of the "Antigravity/UFO/Alien/secret-squirrel" stuff is the disconnect between the known and the theory. People see all kinds
of weird things in the sky - I'm sure a number of them are secret aircraft, aliens, and/or whatever - statistical probability suggests no flying
aircraft is going to go completely unnoticed for long. We know the military has many secret programs - some of which are bound to involve things that
fly. Thus - the idea that some of the "things that act weird" in the sky are, in fact, secret projects, is not that difficult to believe.
However - to go from believing you saw a top-secret airplane to believing someone who tells you they work on one, is completely different. Sure -
statistical probability suggests there are people out there who work on them and that a few are bound to say more than they are supposed to - it
happens. But they are saying it uses technology that may as well be considered magic to fly. ... How does that even begin to compare? It is
understandable to think secret programs would be working on technology that is little known, if not unknown - but so far outside of our present
capability? None of the core technologies used on even the most top-secret aircraft to date were ever incapable of being reproduced by the civilian
market - the solutions were specific, but composite materials and RAM were never so advanced as to be impossible to reproduce.
That is kind of why they are secret... because they can be reproduced with knowledge of what they are made out of. Spending billions to develop
something then giving it away so others can blow you up with it is kind of silly.
It's all well and good for a spook such as yourself with a CAC card access to SiPRNET (accepted without proof ) to make such statement, but most here
at AST don't have that luxury and must 'speculate' with the snippets we can find.
I am not sure where you pick up that I implied I have access to SIPRNET. That's not a CAC function, anyway - SIPR has its own terminals labeled with
the appropriate classification level. Green is unclassified for-official-use-only (fun is secured on all DoD terminals until further notice). Red is
Secret. Orange is top-secret. There is, generally, no mixing of colors. And everything from the terminal to the mouse is labeled with the
appropriate classification level (it honestly strikes me as overzealous).
SIPR terminals are also limited in their function. It's not like you get to access the "Navy Website, Secret You-are-special Version (Beta)"
Compartmentalization. And the Navy knows about that... we don't have 'rooms' - they are compartments XP
Unless of course, your willing to give us a nice juicy tidbit that won't get you a visit to that nice vacation resort the CIA runs.
Talk about spoiled. Here I am, telling you (and everyone else who may be reading), how DoD networks function. It's not like it's any big secret,
but, man. "Oh, he claims to be in the military and have access to the NIPRNET - let's try and make him share some really big secret to believe
Alright - fine, there's a closely guarded secret that comes with the use of the PRIMS website. When asked by your command to fill out a PARFQ, you
have to go into this site within BUPERS. There, you'll see your physical fitness records. You need to add a new record to be able to fill out the
PARFQ as requested, but can spend the whole day pushing every button and clicking every part of the screen, trying to figure out how to do this. The
solution is so simple it's almost insulting - right-click on your record (because this is such a commonly used method), then select 'add new
record' from the menu.
You have no idea how many man-hours are wasted on that every PRT cycle.
Or, when you're in NSIPS, managing your ESR (Enlisted Service Record), in order to change information, you have to locate this obscure 'link'
within the list of directories on the left-hand side of your screen. The default mass of directories is a read-only - editing your record (such as
your address, phone number, etc) needs to be done through this option at the bottom, obscured by all of the redundant links above.
If you want, I can also share with you some secrets of effectively searching the CANTRAC and CANTRACII database of DoD schooling.
No? Hmmmm well you can no more DISPROVE the TR3-B than those who say they worked on it can PROVE it. And the caveat is, that IF you knew it
existed, you wouldn't be able to even speak of it
That's some rather twisted logic. Of course no one can ever prove a negative. Try as I might, I could never prove the TR-3B to not exist - because
I cannot ever test all possible scenarios. However, one can test the positives another asserts, or at least challenge the basis on which they are
founded. IE - one can prove someone's statements to be false. Someone can say: "I have the hair of big-foot" - and that claim can be tested. The
results of that test have little bearing on the existence of big-foot, just the claim that the hair belonged to big-foot.
Likewise - I could never prove there to not be a craft of similar function to the TR-3B. The claim that it is called the TR-3B, that it uses a form
of gravity manipulation, and any/every other comment about it can be tested (once we have the capability to test them) and proven to be correct or in
error. Likewise - the statements one makes about their career can be analyzed and put to the test, as well. Yes - even my own.
Nope never hacked anything... just have friends in high places that send me stuff. or more to the point, point me in the right direction and
give me the right question to ask
Perhaps you could share an example of one such question and the resulting answer?
Well there you go again Herr Spook, making assumptions with no basis in fact... does that not make your motives as suspect as those you debunk?
As to target, well I already had a 'visit' spent 3 days 'chatting' (and yes he had proper ID and even parking decals on his windshield) I survived
to tell about it
You are the one who implied you had direct access to a restricted network (without authorization).
You can't blame me for entertaining the possibility you were telling the truth. However - it is unlikely you were visited by anyone since all of
your 'access' has been indirect. Not that it can be proven either way by either of us. You are allowed to ask all the questions you want to anyone
you want - they are the ones who would be visited if their responses were out-of-line and managed to catch someone's eye.
Harassing the person asking questions about secret programs is not a very effective response to the problem. The problem would be you getting answers
you shouldn't... which have nothing to do with you, and everything to do with where the answer came from.
I'd make a better prosecuting attorney than a spook. I talk too much.
Well Herr Spook... if that were true, then why do those I contact at many DoD sites seem so very helpful at getting me the information I
Depends upon what you are seeking, and if you are actually finding what you seem to think you are. Often, a cake is just a cake - no guns, files, etc
baked into them.
One request to a NASA librarian resulted in that person sending my request 'up the line' Got 6 different replies to that one letter, one from
NASA and 5 others from various agencies. The final one came from USArmy-SMDC in Huntsville providing me with the location of said files and how I
could get them
Declassified, but where does the public see this stuff unless someone like me does the legwork
And... what did you find?
Any real aircraft has a paper trail. Even the F-117 and B-2 had some pretty big trails of paper pointing to their existence prior to their public
debut. What have you found relating to this particular aircraft?
I was simply stating I'd never heard of it, so wasn't really sure what you were asking about. Doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
That is the Boeing/Energia joint venture. Not the one I am looking for. You quoting wikipedia? Now then Herr Spook which three letter club did
you say that card was from?
The radar you link to is a missile defense radar intended to link with sea and shore based missile defense platforms. If you're talking about the
Navy's anti-ballistic missile system, it's not a single platform but a VLS-compatible upgrade to the RIM-161 - the SM-3 designed to work with AEGIS
(which supports advanced combat networking - IE - what this big radar of see-all knows about, so can the rest of the AEGIS-equipped fleet - and they
can shoot at it, too).
The radar would have nothing to do with a sea-to-orbit launch platform, anyway - it's simply not necessary as most of the radars equipped on cruisers
and destroyers can track satellites and orbital launches to a practical standard. But, sure, if they can hide a whole battalion of anti-gravity space
ships with no mission, then I guess they can hide a mobile version of Cape Canaveral on the open ocean.
reply to post by Larryman
The problem I have with "gravity shielding" is that we have the concept of gravity all wrong.
What 'creates' gravity? Mass? Sort of - more specifically, the distribution of mass creates 'gravity.' Gravity is a representation of the
amount of energy a local object must lose before/upon becoming part of another local mass. IE - a ball on the surface of the earth could be
considered to be at maximum entropy - the ball has no more energy to 'give' by falling. Likewise - throwing the ball into orbit would add energy to
the ball to be 'stored.'
Thus - 'shielding' from gravity is impossible, as it's a representation of entropic potentials as opposed to a radiating field of (or lack
thereof). There could, however, be other means of introducing energy to a mass and allowing it to assume a location reflecting its entropic state. A
"reactionless" drive that inherently ignores inertia. The effect would be similar to 'antigravity' - but would really just be a method of
uniformly controlling the acceleration/deceleration of the affected mass and potentially still subject to relativistic limitations. I am also not
sure that it would be a very convenient method - you're manipulating energy potentials, which is determined by location (not necessarily what
determines location, heading, velocity, etc). So control would probably be rather limited in function.
Though I don't think we've really found a method of accomplishing this - aside from the tried and true 'classic' methods of acceleration.