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: 20
22
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 12:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


With all due respect Aloysius those examples are not the slightest bit similar nor do they have anything in common with what I and many people saw recently. It looks like a TR3B, it flies like a TR3B but you are right...it might be just a weird looking bird imitating a TR3B. Nature has some amazing camouflage ability! Of course I jest, mostly because I have lost the desire to argue the point. I will continue to tell people what I saw however as will the rest of the folks who have seen the same thing. I guarantee if YOU saw THIS you WOULD come to the same conclusion. You would dismiss the naysayers and claim you saw a secret aircraft because it is infinitely more believable than the other possibility that would spring to mind - an extra terrestrial craft.




posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 01:04 AM
link   
reply to post by newcovenant
 


No one knows that it looks like a TR3 because no one actually know what a TR3 looks like because no one has actually shown that the TR3 actually exists! Ditto wit how it flies.

All there is is people seeing things they say is a TR3, and conveniently always never having a camera, or taking photos of undefined lights at night, etc., and a whole bunch of confirmation bias commentaries such as yours.



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 01:43 AM
link   
reply to post by newcovenant
 



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


With all due respect.... people are dumb.

I shouldn't really say that - people have minds that work differently.

I have always been a very knowledge-based person. I seek information and absorb it with ruthless passion. When I do not know something - it frustrates me to the core; but I fully accept and realize that I do not know, and will make it very clear when telling a story what I do and do not know.

This is why people, like myself, are the most reliable testimony that can ever be given short of a recording device. My fixation with differentiating between the known and unknown makes me very resilient to phenomena known as memory modification. I won't say it doesn't happen with me... but it's a rare occasion when I recall a videotaped phenomena and am having to eat my words.

Now, enough bragging about how my mind works (I pay for it when it comes to other things, like being able to function in a typical manner).

Other people work differently. One particular group is the "story teller" group. These people are always telling stories - not necessarily made up stories, but stories. About anything. They will never run out of them. And it's always fun to listen to these people - but one must remember what their social function is.... entertainment. They entertain other people, and it is one of their passions in life (even if they seem introverted, studious, etc). Their brain adapts to this role. Good stories don't come from: "Oh... what was his name...?" or "I don't remember the details, but... it was funny."

Good stories come from a smooth presentation. Gaps get filled in on the fly. Details get changed or added simply in a way that is convenient for telling the story and making it come out smooth - or come out as appealing to the crowd.

I experience this quite often with one of my senior coworkers. You always have to double-check to make sure you and he are talking about the same thing... because, often, he catches part of what you are talking about and matches it to something he remembers (which is completely different from what you are talking about). For example... the game: "Over G Fighters" and "Blazing Angels" are not the same - yet, he will equate the two in conversation, thinking he played the game you are talking about.

Ask yourself this: How many times, as a kid, did you spend hours looking through the woods or grinding through a game, looking for some 'hidden secret' one of your school buddies told you about?

In my day - that stuff was rampant with games like Pokemon (do you have any idea how long I sat and thought about how to move that damned truck a few of my friends -swore- they moved? ... lying little #s) or running around through some stupid field with 1hp (or some other stupid nonsense) trying to catch a Mew? ... Now I know, looking at the code and the exploits thereof, that it was all a bunch of nonsense (well... also, after doing that stuff for hours and deciding that throwing acorns at the cat was a more productive use of my time.... I still enjoy annoying my pets... but in a less terrorizing manner).

So, when someone looks at an aircraft and says: "I saw that flying over my house the other day." - I have a hard time taking their word for it. Because I've rarely encountered an individual whose accounts of events and conviction to differentiating the known from the unknown parallel my own. Even people I consider to be equals or superiors in intelligence (a very select group) rarely have a memory that rivals my own.



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 02:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
Off_the_street, you have been talking about something that has been discussed by memebers before.

"...why is the United States wasting billions of dollars on "obsolete" designs like the F-22, F/A35, F/A-18E/F, and so on?"

That was your question, and to give you a simple answer, is this, America is spending so much money on obsolete designs as those because if America spent so much money on the new designs, then The U.S. would be bankrupt. We spend money on those designs because right now, that is all the R&D budget allows for.

So you need to think about it ok? And I have done some extensive research on what the TR-3A is believed to accomplish, or atleast believed what it is to be.

For me, I have only know about the TR-3A, and was unaware about the TR-3B until a few months back, and yes I do believe that the TR-3B is a little bit farfetched.

So to agree with you, yes I do believe that the TR-3B does not exist, but to answer your question, there are a few reasons why America is still using those obsolete models, and I have just named one.

Shattered OUT...



You sound like you have absolutely no idea what your talking about. Sorry. But if you only a few months back heard about the tr3b and you can make the assumption that it doesnt exist .who are you exactly. Mr expert. Ill reserve my judgement when some evidence is presented. As far as im concerned the world is an oyster and it smells of technology.
edit on 18-12-2011 by lizardman because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 03:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by newcovenant
 


No one knows that it looks like a TR3 because no one actually know what a TR3 looks like because no one has actually shown that the TR3 actually exists! Ditto wit how it flies.
.



Well yeeesss...except for the people who worked on them.

I'm gathering you sort of resent not seeing one yourself for adequate convincing and so vigorously attempt to discredit others. Others who actually did witness this craft and tell you they do exist.

And it IS your prerogative to remain in disbelief for however long it takes you to catch on,

but hmmm, how can I put this gently... I wouldn't want to be you.



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 03:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Aim64C
 


Yeah, yeah... people are mistaken (or stupid as you say) all good and well but I saw one myself, it was not far away and I mentally recorded every detail. All my faculties are working.

I would respond further but I already HAVE have to great length. I can't help enlighten you further. It's not even my job. I can say what I saw though and you can believe it or not.

I don't need pictures to have seen it.
I need them to convince you but truthfully even that is not all that important.

~ Ripley



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 04:50 AM
link   
reply to post by newcovenant
 


I've seen quite a few odd things in the sky.

I've seen several alleged "black" projects that can potentially account for some of the things that I have seen (along with other explanations that I was seeing some undocumented natural phenomena or having a brief 'glitch' in my visual senses).

To take the leap and say: "What I saw was an F-23. Not an F-22 or recon drone - an F-23 that must be part of some special warfare group..." is just simply not in me.

I've studied aircraft just about as long as I've been alive. It's one of my life's passions.

You may be fully convinced of what you saw. I can almost guarantee you that, were I there, I would be able to pull up an existing aircraft that matches what we saw while demonstrating its behavior to be well within the expected flight characteristics of that aircraft.

Alien spacecraft are far more plausible than a secret squadron of these aircraft that are allowed to fly absolutely reckless and haphazard patterns (based on witness sightings alleging this aircraft is their source).



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 05:22 AM
link   
Nobody in the aviation community takes the TR3B story seriously because id does not exist.

There are a myriad of DARPA lighter than air/ high endurance projects publically acknowledged, undoubtedly others others that are classified.

It seems clear that is a partial explanation for some of the "black triangle" sightings.

Various incantations of black triangular planform low observable aircraft have been flying for 30+ years now with an dramatic increase in black, triangular UAV's in the last 10 years.

Take one persons stealth blimp sighting floating along some dark night, then another's sighting of a B-2. F-117, UAV etc. cruising along at 500 knots.

Post them both on a aeronautically unsavvy and technologically challenged conspiracy forum and in no time at all somebody will come along explaining to anyone who will listen that both sightings are one in the same of the mythical TR3B.

A few more people who don't have any real aerospace experience or knowledge will not only agree but argue with anyone who says different, a majority consensus is formed and the next thing there is another "confirmed" TR3B sighting with people linking back years later to the same silly thread that confused the two in the begining and offering it as "proof!"

Is it really that difficult of a thought exercise to see how it happens?

Again, Triangular planforms for both lighter than air and fixed wing aircraft are a reality. Some are undoubtedly highly classified and demonstrate some phenomenal technologies.

On the other hand, until someone can produce anything more than internet rumors full of technological nonsense, the TR3B claim as a explanation for the black triangle UAP needs to get buried as an urban myth.

The really funny part is that so many people believe they know enough about aviation to rule out conventional explanations yet have no problem with the idea of nuclear powered super craft built from reverse engineered extraterrestrial technology that transition from a treetop hover to hyper-sonic flight and into low earth orbit before engaging their total invisibility cloaking devices and returning to hidden underground military bases at S-4 or Dulche.

Just because you don't know what you saw does not mean that nobody else does.


edit on 18-12-2011 by Drunkenparrot because: Sp



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 09:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aim64C
reply to post by newcovenant
 


I've seen quite a few odd things in the sky.

I've seen several alleged "black" projects that can potentially account for some of the things that I have seen (along with other explanations that I was seeing some undocumented natural phenomena or having a brief 'glitch' in my visual senses).

To take the leap and say: "What I saw was an F-23. Not an F-22 or recon drone - an F-23 that must be part of some special warfare group..." is just simply not in me.

I've studied aircraft just about as long as I've been alive. It's one of my life's passions.

You may be fully convinced of what you saw. I can almost guarantee you that, were I there, I would be able to pull up an existing aircraft that matches what we saw while demonstrating its behavior to be well within the expected flight characteristics of that aircraft.

Alien spacecraft are far more plausible than a secret squadron of these aircraft that are allowed to fly absolutely reckless and haphazard patterns (based on witness sightings alleging this aircraft is their source).



Yup. I am sure you can just as I did. And there is no "may be" about it. True... No I didn't get the serial number and mfg off the side of the thing but I can tell you it was a solid flat black triangle with a faint grey border and 3 small running lights floating just over the trees at a leisurely clip of about 10 miles an hour at quarter to 5 am.

Since I live near Grumman AFB and they reportedly make these things I suspected that it was one of those. At first I thought it was ET but then I saw a depiction of the TR3B. No I have not studied these things and I have never seen a UFO but when you are around 3 they give you a game where you match up the shapes to the hole. I was always good at that game. lol I know what I saw and then I saw it depicted in pictures. It was not a hobby craft - was the Astra of some brand, shape or form.



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 09:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Drunkenparrot
Nobody in the aviation community takes the TR3B story seriously because id does not exist.


I don't know how you can say "nobody" when I can find people right here on ATS in aviation who say it does exist.

I am sure you would have to have extremely high clearance to be fully aware of everything going on in defense don't you think?

Is it possible those who you refer to do not have that clearance and so are kept in the dark?
I think that must be true because I saw one and they do exist.

There are people in the aviation community who say UFO's don't exist.

Now I do not know if THEY are fabricating or mistaken because I have never seen a UFO personally. I DO believe other peoples accounts they are real. I have seen and read about enough genuine evidence to be fairly certain, I'll say 99.9 percent certain - that UFO"S do, in fact, exist.

The TR3B?...No question about it. Consider yourself enlightened if you want to be or you may alternatively choose to remain in the dark with your aviation expert friends but for what it is worth there is zero degree of doubt in my mind about this aircraft. I am 100% certain it exists because I saw it with my own eyes.

I don't know what power it was running under - nuclear or otherwise - in that regard I am ignorant but if the TR3B is nuclear powered then this must be also and you can think that is as humorous as you wish. Really makes no difference to me.

edit on 18-12-2011 by newcovenant because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 09:26 AM
link   
reply to post by deepwaters
 

I know I keep secrets. We all do. It's inevitable that our government would too.
edit on 18-12-2011 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 11:00 AM
link   
I foudn this to be very interesting:
en.wikipedia.org...

The Aircraft Nuclear Propulsion (ANP) program and the preceding Nuclear Energy for the Propulsion of Aircraft (NEPA) project worked to develop a nuclear propulsion system for aircraft. The United States Army Air Force initiated Project NEPA on May 28, 1946.[1] After funding of $10 million in 1947,[2] NEPA operated until May 1951, when the project was transferred to the joint Atomic Energy Commission (AEC)/USAF ANP.[3] The USAF pursued two different systems for nuclear powered jet engines, the Direct Air Cycle concept which was developed by General Electric, and Indirect Air Cycle which was assigned to Pratt & Whitney. The program was intended to develop and test the Convair X-6, but was cancelled in 1961 before that aircraft was built.



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 02:20 PM
link   
reply to post by newcovenant
 


Oh well - yeah - "no doubt in your mind" is certainly good evidence for it existing...


Look - you can believe all you want in anything - TR3's, or anything else....that's your opinion.

but when you try to tell me it is a fact that it exists then the first thing I am goign to ask for is the evidence - and if all you have is eyewitnesses who see 3 lights in the sky then I just don't find that in the least bit convincing. Indeed I find it less than convincing - I find it manufactured to fit a pre-conception, and I resent you wasting my time with it.



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by newcovenant
I'm gathering you sort of resent not seeing one yourself for adequate convincing and so vigorously attempt to discredit others.



Ahh.....presumptuous AND ignorant - the ATS paradigm!



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 05:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by newcovenant
I'm gathering you sort of resent not seeing one yourself for adequate convincing and so vigorously attempt to discredit others.



Ahh.....presumptuous AND ignorant - the ATS paradigm!




Ahh rude and disagreeable - the real ATS paradigm!


Believe what you want and please stop wasting my time with insults to my character and accuracy. If you want to believe this Triangle Craft was ET that is your affair. I personally am not that naive.



posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 06:21 PM
link   
reply to post by newcovenant
 


It's a deal - when you stop presuming you know what I want I shall stop thinking you presumptuous.

and when you stop ignoring the quality of the evidence I shall stop thinking you ignorant.




posted on Dec, 18 2011 @ 06:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul
reply to post by newcovenant
 


It's a deal - when you stop presuming you know what I want I shall stop thinking you presumptuous.

and when you stop ignoring the quality of the evidence I shall stop thinking you ignorant.



I have no idea what you want. "The last word" I am guessing.
You may continue to think me ignorant - and I will continue to trust my own eyes when the evidence is right in front of me and I see it for myself. I will not wait for you to tell me what to believe I saw.


Thanks though.



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 02:55 AM
link   
reply to post by newcovenant
 



Yup. I am sure you can just as I did. And there is no "may be" about it. True... No I didn't get the serial number and mfg off the side of the thing but I can tell you it was a solid flat black triangle with a faint grey border and 3 small running lights floating just over the trees at a leisurely clip of about 10 miles an hour at quarter to 5 am.


A flat black triangle.... at 0445 (so, a black object on a relatively black sky). That's going to throw off your depth perception to a ridiculous degree. Not that our depth perception is all that reliable outside of a few dozen meters.

I will question, however, how you were able to notice a gray border around an object under those lighting conditions. The nature of the object you describe is already quite deceptive (dark object, dark background - with only three running lights to indicate size, shape, direction, etc).

In many cases, what happens is your brain attempts to 'draw' between known objects. A standard aircraft with three lights in a triangular orientation would be interpreted to be series of lights with an obscuring surface between them (because the lights wash out ambient clues).


Since I live near Grumman AFB and they reportedly make these things I suspected that it was one of those.


.... Where?

I'm not familiar with a "Grumman" Air Force Base. Neither is Google. Grumman, itself, has research branches and manufacturing facilities all over the United States.


At first I thought it was ET but then I saw a depiction of the TR3B. No I have not studied these things and I have never seen a UFO but when you are around 3 they give you a game where you match up the shapes to the hole. I was always good at that game. lol I know what I saw and then I saw it depicted in pictures. It was not a hobby craft - was the Astra of some brand, shape or form.


Do aircraft normally fly in such a manner around the area where you saw this thing?

I live near Whiteman - there are certain patterns aircraft fly, around here. The A-10s would come tree-top-level over the area near our house. I won't discuss current patterns I've noticed for OPSEC reasons - but there are 'zones' that the aircraft will use. Obviously - landing and take-off are going to be centered around the base. However - F-15s will practice different engagement maneuvers (including mergers - which tear the sky apart with the sound of afterburners) over large sections of farm land and state parks. Routine "fly the waypoints" will take them out over some towns (usually well over 500 meters).

You get the idea.

The DoD and other agencies go to great lengths to build bases and facilities in remote locations and regions to keep sensitive and advanced projects away from prying eyes and accidental discoveries.

Why, pray tell, would they be flying one where you are going to see it?

Let's not even get into the assertion that someone out there is building an entire operational squadron of said aircraft (which is what the claim is in the case of the TR-3B). My point is, however, that you really have no idea what you saw - and you can't supplement what little you did see with outside information to yield anything resembling a definitive conclusion. Moreover - what you have chalked it up to makes no sense without expending some time into satisfying other criterion.


I am sure you would have to have extremely high clearance to be fully aware of everything going on in defense don't you think?


Yes, and no.

The civilian market is, in many ways, ahead of the military.

"No it isn't, Aim - people have said it is years ahead!"

Yes. And you have to understand how they think to understand why they are justified in saying that.

The military often experiments with technology that is still in research stages - pre-production, before it is cleared by consumer agencies, etc. Defense analysts, however, can give you a very accurate idea of what is out there by looking through patents made by major and minor defense contractors.

However, the military is slow to adapt and change its inventory. It may take three years to design a new device/gadget/article using new technology (that may or may not have been developed with defense in mind). Once that is done, it will take another year to clear the paperwork, another year of tool-up, and another two years of running inventory to enable a fluid maintenance cycle on your first roll-outs. You're looking at a seven year development cycle to adopt new technology, in many cases.

For a techie, like myself, I'm hardly ever surprised by the goings-on in defense. The new thing they are on about is information - processing, distributing, and securing it. A whole flight of aircraft working as if it has one mind is far more effective than 'uber' designs. We left that behind in the 60s.



posted on Dec, 19 2011 @ 03:03 AM
link   
reply to post by jonnywhite
 



I foudn this to be very interesting:


This was the old nuclear powered aircraft idea.

Basically, you would take the heat from the reactor and vent it into what would be the combustion chamber of your average jet engine (I'm over-simplifying the physics, here). This would cause the thermal expansion necessary to drive the engine.

I believe there was an alternative idea that involved a, literal, nuclear power plant aboard the aircraft that ran a universal electric bus, which, in turn, powered an electrically based turbine concept. Though I believe that never made it off of the drawing board due to structural limitations.

In the end - it was deemed impractical, and the risk of losing control of nuclear material too great (not a good idea to let several dozen kilograms of reactor-grade uranium drop into the hands of warlords in third world nations - who knows where it will go and who will end up using it). It didn't really pose many significant advantages over conventional turbine technology (your crew still had to have time to debrief and spend time outside of the aircraft, and it still had to land for routine maintenance and inspection cycles).

Once we achieve fusion, though, the idea would be interesting to revisit.



posted on Dec, 20 2011 @ 11:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Aim64C
 


And don't forget the Supersonic Low Altitude Missile - SLAM - estimated range 113,000 miles, and talk about multiple threats - direct radiation from its reactor, fallout from its exhaust, shock wave from its supersonic flight at low level, 16 warheads, and finally crashing the missile itself into a final target to poison the site with the reactor remains along with everything else!!
edit on 21-12-2011 by Aloysius the Gaul because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join