It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

TR-3B nuclear powered flying triangle

page: 18
22
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 9 2011 @ 05:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 





I don't sorry. I think you have either sucumbed to suggestion, or are lying.


I think you are free to think (even say) what ever you want.
The beauty of being an American in America.





why? Because there is no corroborating evidence to support what you say.


This may come as a shock but I don't need corroborating evidence to be telling the truth.
edit on 9-10-2011 by newcovenant because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 9 2011 @ 07:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by RichardPrice
I suggest you go and investigate the masses of study done on "witness testimony" and actually how unreliable it is -


Uhmmm.. Our entire court and judicial system is based on witness testimony.

We used it to determine fact from fiction even before we knew how to properly collect tangible physical evidence, in everything from petty theft, and lawsuits to murder.
We sentence people to death over a single wintess testimony.

But use it to give a shred of credence with regards to anything that isnt on the front page of an MSM publication and eyewitness testimony suddenly isnt valid.

Tailoring facts to support your skepticism makes you look ignorant of reality.
No offense, but I hate hearing that bogus argument to discredit eyewitness testimony.

Eyewitness testimony DOES carry weight, like it or not, and has been proven in courts over many centuries to be worthy of credence.



edit on 10/9/1111 by BadNinja68 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 03:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by BadNinja68

Uhmmm.. Our entire court and judicial system is based on witness testimony.

We used it to determine fact from fiction even before we knew how to properly collect tangible physical evidence, in everything from petty theft, and lawsuits to murder.
We sentence people to death over a single wintess testimony.

But use it to give a shred of credence with regards to anything that isnt on the front page of an MSM publication and eyewitness testimony suddenly isnt valid.

Tailoring facts to support your skepticism makes you look ignorant of reality.
No offense, but I hate hearing that bogus argument to discredit eyewitness testimony.

Eyewitness testimony DOES carry weight, like it or not, and has been proven in courts over many centuries to be worthy of credence.



Eye witness testimony does still carry weight, but these days in court its incredibly easy to mitigate or have removed from the record - judges and juries today absolutely hate cases solely based on eye witness testimony, because it has proven to be so unreliable in the past.

And I'm not tailoring facts, there has been many studies and examples to show that this is the case.

For example, the shooting of Jean Charles Menezes by British Police on the London Underground on the 22nd July 2005 (for those of you that aren't aware, this is only a few weeks after the London bombings which killed over 50 people, mainly in three bomb attacks on the underground itself)...

Multiple eye witness reports stated that Menezes ran through the foyer area, vaulted the ticket barrier and ran down the stairs. Witness statements also said he was wearing a bulky top that seemed to be concealing something large.

Police followed him down into the station and onto a train, where he was shot several times.

The media ran with the eye witness accounts for several days, until the CCTV footage of the incident (up to the point where the train was boarded) was released, and none of the dozen or so witness accounts was corroborated to any degree. The CCTV showed Menezes calmly entering the foyer, buying a paper, calmly approaching the ticket barrier and paying for his ticket with a travel card, and slowly proceeding down the escalator into the station, where he boarded the train.

Eye witness accounts from an event in a very public area, proven totally wrong...

news.bbc.co.uk...

There have been many many studies on the subject, and eye witness testimony has been proven time and again to be unreliable.

The case of the Amsterdam 747 crash in 1992 - eye witnesses were interviewed after the event and after a year, and their accounts differed greatly - indeed, many said they had seen the crash happen on TV, when infact the crash had never been videoed, and instead they had subconsciously compiled their accounts together from other sources.

as-psychology.pbworks.com...

I can cite thousands of cases where witness testimony has jailed people when there has been a lack of any other evidence - and then those convicted have been found to be innocent and released. I can cite thousands of more cases where eye witness testimony has been proven totally wrong during the case (the best time for it to be disproven - then it doesn't convict the innocent).

Its got nothing to do with tailoring facts or being ignorant of reality, its knowing what you are talking about - and eye witness testimony is unreliable.

Show me one case in the past 50 years where an American court has convicted and given the death penalty on a single eye witness testimony alone. You won't be able to.

www.npr.org...

www.visualexpert.com...

The problem with modern courts (not just American courts, but this problem exists in British courts as well) is that its not the "Search for Truth and Justice" that it should be, its "who has the most convincing case", and part of that case involves having a very good lawyer who can direct the jury (if there is one) toward convicting on the basis of the evidence given by the prosecution - and a lot of that directing involves passion and argumentation.

I wonder what would happen if both sides in a case were only allowed to present evidence, and the "summing up" (or closing speech) was no longer allowed - the jury only being able to deliberate on the evidence and not the persuasional skills of a lawyer...
edit on 10/10/2011 by RichardPrice because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 03:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Off_The_Street
 


Well its kinda like the hammers and toilet seats the gov paid 700 to 2000 dollars a piece for back in the 80s, all just ways to hide money for the things they really want of course... But then again all you had to do is think for a min to answer that question for yourself....



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 04:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by newcovenant
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 





I don't sorry. I think you have either sucumbed to suggestion, or are lying.


I think you are free to think (even say) what ever you want.
The beauty of being an American in America.

I'm not American and I'm not in America - visited a couple of times - nice place





why? Because there is no corroborating evidence to support what you say.



This may come as a shock but I don't need corroborating evidence to be telling the truth.


Indeed not.

And you don't need it to not be telling the truth either.

But truth or not - without it all you have is your unsubstantiated assertion..............and these days there's far to much of that around that is obviously bravo sierra for anyone to take it as gospel.

And I'm very happy that this is not a court of law!

edit on 10-10-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 04:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


Whatever.
I think you and your pal there just like to hear yourselves talk.
I have the camera out there now mounted where I saw the TR3B - going due south, toward Bermuda.



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 07:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by newcovenant
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


Whatever.
I think you and your pal there just like to hear yourselves talk.
I have the camera out there now mounted where I saw the TR3B - going due south, toward Bermuda.


Nice to see that you think you are free to say whatever you like, but those who disagree with you aren't...

If you aren't willing to have your opinions challenged, then I would suggest you refrain from posting in a public forum.



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 07:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by 5StarOracle
reply to post by Off_The_Street
 


Well its kinda like the hammers and toilet seats the gov paid 700 to 2000 dollars a piece for back in the 80s, all just ways to hide money for the things they really want of course... But then again all you had to do is think for a min to answer that question for yourself....


I saw two good explanations for the toilet seat and hammer costings once...

Firstly is that at one point in USAF fiscal history, they reverted to "shared cost" across the entirety of an airframe - everything shared an equal portion of the airframes cost within the USAFs financial inventory, regardless of whether it was a jet engine or a hammer bought specifically for an airframe (and there are reasons for buying a hammer for an airframe - you may be needing to tease titanium parts together, in which case you need a hammer that is hard enough to sustain hitting titanium repeatedly, and also wont cause corrosive effects through differing materials... not an easy job!) - so the hammer would come out at $700, but so would the jet engine...

The second explanation I heard was - you try procuring an off-the-shelf toilet seat that fits the chemical toilet in the B-52, and won't freeze the butt of the user to it when in flight... again, not so easy when you actually think about it
The right materials, the right size and fittings, and even a heater installed in the toilet seat!


No idea how accurate they are, but they both sound plausible - should be fairly easy for an American to discover more via the Freedom of Information Act (I don't get why I don't see more FOIA releases as the topics of threads here on these forums - surely some of you are doing them...? I know I did 6 or 7 years ago, until they cottoned on that I was not an American and refused to release the information to me
)



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 09:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by MedicWithUber
There is a thread I read on another message board that was titled
"I am in the US NAVY Space Command and I have Been to Elenin"



Sounds a bit science fiction to me. Good science fiction, although I dont really like fiction, cos anyone can tell stories.

What made me sit up was how they are names after British Cars - TR3 and now the E-Type?

One thing is tru though, the amount spent on Nasa is insignificant to Military

2010 NASA budget = $18.724 billion
2010 Military Budget = $1.03 trillion

I read a thread that in Apollo the governt gave 5% of Federal budgt to NASA today that would be about 10 times the $18billion and they could do some pretty good stuff with that.

Does the military still launch all its satellites on Nasa rockets or has anyone realised there is a technology floating around that we dont remember weing sent up??

The military still use GPS guided munitions, they need HF radio, they use secure satellite comms, they transfer predator feed through TDCLs which rely on internet protocals and satellites, they still rely on fossil fuel, the biggest brains in the world working at top defence contractors are struggling with conventional aircraft and yet this guy thinks the Navy have a space rangers station.

This doesnt belong in this post on Aircraft Projects, more like Science fiction. There is no proof of TR3B - the Chinese, the Russians and the Americans are still struggling to produce 5th Generation conventional aircraft for which we have proof and yet we think a 'nuclear powered triangle' is flying around Belgian and Texas.

Science Fiction



posted on Oct, 10 2011 @ 10:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by newcovenant
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


Whatever.
I think you and your pal there just like to hear yourselves talk.


Right - whatever you do, make sure it comes to ad hominem - nice one!



I have the camera out there now mounted where I saw the TR3B - going due south, toward Bermuda.


I look forward to the photo's...honestly - I'd love to see soemthing like the TR-3 actually shown to exist....even by someone as hostile as you!!



posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 12:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
I look forward to the photo's...honestly - I'd love to see soemthing like the TR-3 actually shown to exist....even by someone as hostile as you!!
Some people claim a video of the TR-3B was posted in this thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by vedatruth
It looks like the speculative TR-3B craft, probably owned by USAF.


But you may be disappointed, it's apparently also invisible!


That would help explain why I haven't spotted it yet!

edit on 11-10-2011 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 04:47 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


It betrays the lack of rational intelligent investigation of such people that the get excited by three Chinese lanterns tied together with string, they gleefully clutch at that as evidence of the TR-3B. How desperate can one be?



posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 05:13 AM
link   
reply to post by waynos
 

The mind works in mysterious ways and it apparently will distort all kinds of visual and audible inputs to fit one's belief system. If you doubt that your brain will distort input you receive to fit your belief system, you can prove it to yourself here:

Try The McGurk Effect!

Your eyes see one thing, and that creates a belief in you about what sound you should expect to hear. Then you hear a sound consistent with your belief system, instead of the actual sound. It's the best illustration I've seen yet to show how our minds can deceive us in ways we might not even be aware of.

By the way, there's no need for any string between the Chinese lanterns, they just look like normal lanterns without any string to me. You can read all the other interpretations in that thread, like it's 3 airplanes making turns and maneuvers, etc, when it's clear they are just blowing in the wind, and you'll never trust eyewitnesses again. And we are all watching the exact same video!

The people that want to see a TR-3B, see a TR-3B; The people that want to see 3 planes see 3 planes, and the people that want to see Chinese lanterns see Chinese lanterns, I think that's part of the way the human mind works. (Of course I think they actually ARE Chinese lanterns, but I may be biased
)



posted on Oct, 11 2011 @ 02:43 PM
link   
It seems we only disagree on a very minor detail, I can live with that.




posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 05:11 AM
link   
reply to post by RichardPrice
 


Who might I ask, is stopping you from challenging me? You are free to do so. You do. You happen to be mistaken but I understand there is no way for you to know I am telling the truth. This is circular. I see that but you keep jumping back on as if this ride is eventually going to stop at your house and rest there. It isn't.



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 05:22 AM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


Hostile. I can be hostile.
Trust me friend you have not seen it here. I am standing up for myself and what I saw. You would do no less yourself. Thinking I am talking to kids here since only children use the sort of logic you employ which is the repetitive "I told you so" yes I did "no you didn't" argument.
You do realize, no way will I say I did not see what I saw, nor do I expect to convince you I saw it either. I think you just don't like people making observations about your arguing style...( style...thats generous) which are probably true. You are simply argumentative and ornery. I know old men that are cantankerous. Nothing wrong with it. Not the type I like to hang around though so ...ending this. You take care now, hear?



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 07:33 AM
link   
reply to post by newcovenant
 


I don't think anyone is calling you a liar, or that you didn't see something. I believe the point is that, having seen what you saw, to then conclude that this is not only proof of the existence of a "TR-3B type of" vehicle (accepting that this designation may be wrong), but that it also actually was one, is a rather massive leap.

What basis do you have for coming to that conclusion? Is there something you haven't told us? After all, look at how many people the Chinese lantern video convinced.



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 08:54 AM
link   
history.nasa.gov...
history.nasa.gov...
history.nasa.gov...

There she is flying on the moon. Guess DOD had it flying along with Apollo.

"Project Orion". Used little soda can sized nuclear bombs for propulsion. The big "springy" thing was to receive the energy on the blast plate to push 'er along.

Got great gas mileage.



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 09:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by newcovenant
reply to post by RichardPrice
 


Who might I ask, is stopping you from challenging me? You are free to do so. You do. You happen to be mistaken but I understand there is no way for you to know I am telling the truth. This is circular. I see that but you keep jumping back on as if this ride is eventually going to stop at your house and rest there. It isn't.


You see, its all very well and good, but when you start resorting to personal attacks (as you have done several times in this thread), thats when this goes from an open discussion to you having issues with people in that discussion.

I couldn't care less (yes, thats the correct usage of that term) where it "stops", thats not the point of being involved in the discussion, but you do seem to be determined to come back with more and more personal attacks rather than actual discussion on the topic.



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 10:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by NIGHTHAWK2

Why do you say Edgar Fouche has no clue? please elaborate how you know all you claim too in detail, if you can!


Go and study the video of Ed Fouche's conference back in 1998. Anyone that has served in the military can do what Fouche has done. Yes he served and he should be proud of his service, but why embellish it after retirement? Alarm bells start to ring that something isn't quite right when Fouche tries to pass off an F-15 cockpit image as something else. He gets lots of oohs and ahhs frrom the audience. It shows you how people with a lack of aviation knowledge can be taken in by a presentation.



From Fouche's presentation

'SLIDE 77: Strange picture of aircraft with pilot's head in open.'

Fouche presenting the image from 11:30 on the following video. He offers a Coke drink to anyone who can tell him what it really is. I claim my Coke!



The aircraft is an F-15. He should know as he claims to have worked on them! This is simply an in cockpit shot taken with a wide angle lens. You can even see the F-15 wing planform, including the tops of the two vertical fins.



Another recent example of F-15 wide angle cockpit image from following link.

www.lakenheath.af.mil...

TJ



new topics




 
22
<< 15  16  17    19  20  21 >>

log in

join