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

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 10:45 AM
link   
reply to post by tommyjo
 


No, wait. That presentation was a spoof, right? Surely.

I mean, he deliberately left that F-15 shot up for ages and ages, giving everyone there plenty of time to figure out what it was. Its almost like hes saying "can you see now how I'm lying to you?"

Nobody believes what he says is true, do they?




posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
reply to post by tommyjo
 


No, wait. That presentation was a spoof, right? Surely.

I mean, he deliberately left that F-15 shot up for ages and ages, giving everyone there plenty of time to figure out what it was. Its almost like hes saying "can you see now how I'm lying to you?"

Nobody believes what he says is true, do they?


Try the Open Mind Forum. He is classed as a celebrity over there with his posts. He recently re-emerged in the last year or so. Also check out the comments on his 1998 conference videos hosted by Alien Scientist. Lots of people still buy into it.

www.youtube.com.../u

TJ



posted on Oct, 12 2011 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by newcovenant
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.

snip

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 have no doubt you saw something.

I have no compelling evidence that convinces me you saw a super secret triangular aircraft that may or may not be the TR-3B.

It is your INTERPRETATION of what you saw that I doubt.



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 12:45 AM
link   
That is funny, anyone seen a convertible aircraft.....umm yes actually from WW1 era bi planes, is he really being serious that he pretends that photo is not an F-15? Or is he suggesting the future is convertible?

Whilst the side arguament of 'I saw the TR3b' rages on, come on mods, get this out of the aircraft forum and into some place else where theories and secrets and science fiction exist.



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 08:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
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.



Well Waynos, first thank you for the modicum of respect. I appreciate that my friend. Now let us discuss....

I knew without pic no one was going to believe me but I couldn't keep it to myself. I know it was not Chinese lanterns because it was very close to me. It was gliding over the treetops of the house next door. I was transfixed on the 3 lights moving in unison slowly away from my vantage point. Staring hard, I could make out a black triangle. Staring harder I could make out a grey boarder around the black triangle so it was not entirely black and there wasn't an edge of this I did not see. Some of the drones and other craft are wing shaped as I have seen in artist renditions but this did not have the shape of a wing. It was a perfect unilateral triangle. It had lights at all three corners. I could not see height, since what I saw was an underside of something and it kept moving away from me...very slowly headed due South.

Could it have been something else? Definitely...but this something else was looking exactly as I showed in the earlier picture which looks like a cartoon drawing of this thing which was against a dark gray sky and not illuminated like the photo.

I suppose if we had a craft like this no one would want anyone else blabbing about it and so I see why people are trying to shut me up or get me to say I did not see WHAT I saw. I am an adult, I have all my faculties including my eyesight. I know a balloon or a bunch of them, from a solid object.

You are right that I do not know EXACTLY what it was except an airborne, silent black triangle, gray boarder and 3 small lights at each corner, estimate about 40 feet wide and maybe 6 feet high, like I said I could see the underside but it did not appear to widen as it moved off.

It might have been a Russian drone. Of course I am kidding. I just searched through pictures until I found the closest thing that resembles it and it was the TR3B. Not so unusual or odd considering Patrick's Air Force Base is to the North and Grumman's is right in the area.

If you have other possibilities that do not question my eyesight, sanity or sincerity - I would be very interested in hearing them. I will "give you my opinion" of the possibility it being "what ever you say" and relate those back to you ...fair enough OK?



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 09:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by newcovenant

Well Waynos, first thank you for the modicum of respect. I appreciate that my friend. Now let us discuss....

I knew without pic no one was going to believe me but I couldn't keep it to myself. I know it was not Chinese lanterns because it was very close to me. It was gliding over the treetops of the house next door. I was transfixed on the 3 lights moving in unison slowly away from my vantage point. Staring hard, I could make out a black triangle. Staring harder I could make out a grey boarder around the black triangle so it was not entirely black and there wasn't an edge of this I did not see. Some of the drones and other craft are wing shaped as I have seen in artist renditions but this did not have the shape of a wing. It was a perfect unilateral triangle. It had lights at all three corners. I could not see height, since what I saw was an underside of something and it kept moving away from me...very slowly headed due South.

Could it have been something else? Definitely...but this something else was looking exactly as I showed in the earlier picture which looks like a cartoon drawing of this thing which was against a dark gray sky and not illuminated like the photo.

I suppose if we had a craft like this no one would want anyone else blabbing about it and so I see why people are trying to shut me up or get me to say I did not see WHAT I saw. I am an adult, I have all my faculties including my eyesight. I know a balloon or a bunch of them, from a solid object.

You are right that I do not know EXACTLY what it was except an airborne, silent black triangle, gray boarder and 3 small lights at each corner, estimate about 40 feet wide and maybe 6 feet high, like I said I could see the underside but it did not appear to widen as it moved off.

It might have been a Russian drone. Of course I am kidding. I just searched through pictures until I found the closest thing that resembles it and it was the TR3B. Not so unusual or odd considering Patrick's Air Force Base is to the North and Grumman's is right in the area.

If you have other possibilities that do not question my eyesight, sanity or sincerity - I would be very interested in hearing them. I will "give you my opinion" of the possibility it being "what ever you say" and relate those back to you ...fair enough OK?


I have no issues over *this* rendition of your story, absolutely none.

It was your assertion that X existed because you saw X that I had issues over. Unless you can conclusively prove that you saw X, especially when X is a fantastical thing never proven to exist, then be prepared to defend your assertion.

I dislike assertions going unchallenged because it leads to widespread acceptance far too easily (go to some of the more topical UFO forums on the internet and read what is posted there - its largely a case of you can post anything you really want and have it go unchallenged) - and when that happens a strong assertion replaces the need for evidence. See my problem there?



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 10:47 AM
link   
reply to post by tommyjo
 


... You have got to be kidding me....

I have to admit, I'd never really watched that video before (I didn't need to watch him say what I'd already read)....

Makes me wish I could have been there in '98 as a 10 year old and said: ".... That ... is an F-15." ... I mean... wow. I wouldn't have fallen for that at the age of ten...

I guess it stands to reason... a computer is witchcraft to most people.... why should a wide-angle picture of a cockpit not be something alien?



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 12:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aim64C
reply to post by tommyjo
 


... You have got to be kidding me....



It is a pity that he was distracted and didn't return to the image. If there had been any serious aviation enthusiasts in the audience then it would have been funny to watch his response. The whole thing smacks of simple spin based on a USAF career. Why people have to do it is anyone's guess.

Another glaring mistake is the image of the C-17 that he tries to pass off as a C-130.

www.alienscientist.com...

SLIDE 74: C-130 special Ops plane - front view

This is to justify the claim that a TR-3 image was taken from a C-130 and this is what the TR-3 graphic was based on.


The current picture, a computer graphic representation, was created from the sergeant's digital picture using 3D studio. This picture hangs on the wall in the black vault, at the Aurora Program Office. I'm not at liberty to say where I got these other pictures of the TR-3B.


www.alienscientist.com...

TJ



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by tommyjo
The whole thing smacks of simple spin based on a USAF career. Why people have to do it is anyone's guess.

Fouche talks about how he contacted a lawyer (maybe it was a JAG) regarding what he could write about. He then says the lawyer said he could write fiction if he wanted to, without violating his security, so that's what he decided to do.

He said that openly, so why anyone takes him seriously is beyond me.



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 12:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Dale Brown went on from his career as a B-52 Radar Navigator to write science fiction. My electronics instructor in our dual-credit vocational school had worked with him (and he had been talking about writing a novel since his days in the Air Force). I have to say - I enjoy the Dreamland series, and am impressed at how the real spirit of the Special Warfare Development groups is captured in his novels (even if they are more action oriented than my geeky engineer fascination with it - even the types of operations they conduct ring of the "unsung battles" that few ever know happened).

Fouche is in the wrong line of business, I think. He could write his fiction and appeal to a much wider range of audiences (namely - the ones that don't avoid him like the plague because he's peddling his fiction as the truth).

reply to post by tommyjo
 


Yeah... I don't really understand why he's got a C-17 and calls it a C-130.... I mean... he acts like it's supposed to show the TR-3, somehow... but I don't... I don't see anything that even remotely resembles it.

I'm... apparently missing the point of that slide.



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 06:20 PM
link   
No such thing as a TR-3B outside of 50's Triumph auto technology. The only information one can find on the fictitious craft originates from Rense.co a known perpetrator of outlandish conspiracies backed by nothing but his known fact that people want to believe in something that is simply not there.



posted on Oct, 13 2011 @ 10:41 PM
link   
fuche made allsorts of silly mistakes, he put up a picture of an F-117a and siad it was a pic of him working on the have blue prototypes when we know the have blue was smaller, different colour, slightly different shape and totally different vertical stabilisers.

he also kept calling the F-22 a boeing plane when lockheed are the lead contractors, there was a big thread on his video before somewhere on here, and his claims were ripped to shreds.

he still promotes the mj12 documents then claims he copied them but from real ones when people point out the flaws...

the mans a fantasist dining out on his past military career.

one last thing to point out, that pic of the belgian triangle that people use as evidence for the mythical TR-3B has been outed as a hoax by its maker and the place that published it...

thanks

monkey



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 04:11 AM
link   
reply to post by newcovenant
 


Thanks for the reply, as for discussion I am in a strange position of not believing in the TR-3Bs existence, but at the same time I am unable to offer a credible alternative for your particular sighting as the description cannot be made to fit any known alternatives. I just wish a person, somewhere, that got a view similar to yours would have, or could use a camera to share with everyone else. It is frustrating that nobody has, despite all the reported sightings, and all available pictures are known to be fake.



posted on Oct, 14 2011 @ 10:26 AM
link   
reply to post by waynos
 


Fair enough. I had the camera in my hand and my arm dangled helplessly at my side. It was a choice, risk taking a bad pictures or worse no picture, or keep looking at this thing until it moved out of sight, all happening in the span of about 10 seconds. I choose to note every detail I could with my eyes.
I do not see how people with surveillance pointed upward and living along the east coast of Florida CANNOT capture footage of this craft. I doubt I am the only person in my area that has witnessed this. I imagine soon you will see photos that people have laid in wait and took. Due to the dark color camouflage effect against a night sky and the tiny lights that for all the world resemble stars if you are not really looking...I wonder if this thing CAN be photographed or will show up in photos. They must have tried to make it as UN-photogenic as possible. Maybe that is why we have not seen credible photos up to now.



posted on Oct, 15 2011 @ 03:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by newcovenant
reply to post by waynos
 

Due to the dark color camouflage effect against a night sky and the tiny lights that for all the world resemble stars if you are not really looking...I wonder if this thing CAN be photographed or will show up in photos. They must have tried to make it as UN-photogenic as possible. Maybe that is why we have not seen credible photos up to now.


If you can see it, you can photograph it.



posted on Oct, 20 2011 @ 09:00 AM
link   
reply to post by newcovenant
 


The problem is, it always seems that people who spot things really are the only people in an entire area! That's what makes some of this so unbelievable and drives the need for solid photographic evidence. If something is even at a relatively low altitude, we're still talking about 100's of square miles of exposure....so you're right in your assumption that you couldn't have been the only person who spotted it, as quite clearly no one did!

Sorry...but without photographic evidence, no one will believe you. Harsh, but true.

Cheers

Robbie



posted on Oct, 20 2011 @ 11:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by stratsys-sws
reply to post by newcovenant
 


The problem is, it always seems that people who spot things really are the only people in an entire area! That's what makes some of this so unbelievable and drives the need for solid photographic evidence. If something is even at a relatively low altitude, we're still talking about 100's of square miles of exposure....so you're right in your assumption that you couldn't have been the only person who spotted it, as quite clearly no one did!

Sorry...but without photographic evidence, no one will believe you. Harsh, but true.

Cheers

Robbie



#1 You are wrong in your premise that if you didn't see it it didn't happen.

#2 You may also be completely wrong in your premise that "clearly no one did" in other words iterating, other people did not see it. I am wondering where you draw that assumption from? Thin air?

#3 You are definitely wrong in your assumption I CARE to prove a UFO to you and then risk missing the entire experience. What I decided to do instead of cover my eye with a camera - was not move/ absorb it, make certain there was not some ordinary explanation and take in every detail of what I saw.

Since I have posted my experience in this thread another poster has begun another thread claiming to have witnessed nearly the exact same craft and like I say earlier, if I can see it others can.

Apparently they have and they will. Eventually... say within the next 12 months... you will see report after report, and a few of them will even get some blurry pictures. (I can find these photos others have captured right now as we speak) but people doubt even the photos.

After enough of them even you, (wallowing in your ignorance now -sorry to be so blunt but I am forced put forth the actual FACTS - though admittedly unsubstantiated WITH photo-graphical evidence - in spite of your denial rejection and protestations) will know there is definitely a low flying silent triangle in the night time sky.



posted on Oct, 20 2011 @ 11:54 AM
link   
reply to post by deepwaters
 


Can't speak to the ability to affect gravity and all that. By now one would think we should be able to. Ben Rich at Lockheed at his retirement party hinted in as much, but since I wasn't there (really I wasn't) can't speak to the anti-gravity stuff. But the nuclear power component, ahh, that I can talk about. As was reported in of all publications the Times of India, english language version, around 2009, that we had developed drones that use a composite composed of among "other things" (they didn't mention) hafnium carbide, and we irradiate it with a soft x-ray source similar to a very focused dental x-ray, we can generate a fair amount of power with this process. And we can use it to power a drone for a long, long, time...
edit on 20/10/11 by arbiture because: what else? grammar fart...



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Illustronic
No such thing as a TR-3B outside of 50's Triumph auto technology. The only information one can find on the fictitious craft originates from Rense.co a known perpetrator of outlandish conspiracies backed by nothing but his known fact that people want to believe in something that is simply not there.



Oh really?
Then why are people seeing this thing all over?

www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com... (see second post by deepwaters)

Mass hysteria?



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 04:36 PM
link   
reply to post by newcovenant
 


They don't know what they sawv - it is not mas hysteria to see something you can't identify.

It is unjustified to then claim that because you don't know what it is it must be a super secret nuclear powered aircraft.

See here - www.abovetopsecret.com...



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join