TAW - 50 leaked info...?

I am about 50-50 on this one. I think that some of this may have truth, but the very concept of anti-grav has me doubtful. If humans could manipulate gravity in such ways we would have to know a whole lot more about it than we do now. I have heard rumours that the newer synthetic elements are displaying anti-grav properties, but I am not sure if these have been debunked. If this is true, it's a scary thought. If it isn't (and this I suspect) then its just another hoax on the pile.

Originally posted by GrOuNd_ZeRo
Shugo, I did say that they used it in the gulfwar right?

Why does it matter if the TR-3 was used in the Gulf War or not? This has nothing to do with the topic that I'm persuing with you. Please stop changing the subject.

*sighs* no i'm not like that, I will not and have not changed subject, they did say the TR-3A was used in the Gulfwar and possibly the TR-3B I think but i'm not a 100% on that one.

You can try to demonize me all you want but I will not fold to that.

I tried to answer your question accurately...

Tell me, were you referring to the TAW-50? to me it's new but I have heard of AI's flying these things from underground bases but I can't 100% validate this.

TR-3A has been alledgedly seen by GI's in the gulf war.

TR-3B has been sighted by many people all over the world including Belgium and Russia, as far as I know they have not seen combat but I honestly don't know.

Again, I NEVER claimed it really existed but I do feel it's plausible, re-read my post.

Originally posted by Darkpr0
I have heard rumours that the newer synthetic elements are displaying anti-grav properties, but I am not sure if these have been debunked. If this is true, it's a scary thought. If it isn't (and this I suspect) then its just another hoax on the pile.

I think we've got to blam Lazar for this one. I havn't heard anything of the sort from legititmate scientists only from conspiracy theorists who believe Lazars story of a back engineered saucer powered by ununpentium gravity distorter or something equally ridiculous.

I am still in shock that anyone could be slightly taken in by this clear pseudoscience!

I have a gut feeling this might actually be true.

I say this is real with little doubt in my mind.

Really?

You never tried to answer my questions, you evaded it with boo hoo's and your little TR-3A Theories.

The only "AI" is the computer onboard a UCAV, that's nothing more.

You've been evading explaining

- Anti- / Gravity
- Materials
- Logic
- Secrecy
- Pricetags
- YOUR SOURCES!!!

Sorry "A UFO Crashed, and we got this" doesn't cut it, as that is significantly ILLOGICAL.

Try to back up your claims and "information" with logical and reliable sources, and scientific analysis before throwing out these ideas of yours.

While you think about that, let me pick the wings off this craft even more, since it's so easy to do with real life backgrounds to prove it:

The entire refueling and rearming procedure takes under 10 minutes.

Completely impossible for the size the craft would have to be, and for the engines that it would be using, technology, and a bitch of a fuel hog it'd be anyway.

To arm it would cost one set of several million dollars, plus an additional million or two, or three to refuel.

In ten minutes, they'd be lucky to get it 1/100th covered on fueling, and rearming...not at all.

These military astronauts rotate duty by traveling to and from Vandenburg Air Force Base on other military antigravity vehicles.

ROFL! We're lucky to just have ONE...if ANY.

[edit on 5-26-2006 by Shugo]

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
B-2A costing 1 billion because of the what?? Electro-gravitic systems? What about the inertial dampeners that are actually on board the B-2a? Maybe that's why it costs so much? Or maybe it's just a really expensive aircraft because it's been overpriced, this is something Government contractors tend to do, they tend to over price things so that they make enough money to stay functional, it's natural, it's been going on since the government first used contractors for anything.

In the case of the B-2, huge numbers of orders for the planes were cancellled after the production plant was built (which was designed as a high-volume production plant) and so the small number of aircraft that remained on order had to have their prices jacked up because the bulk order they expected turned out to be a small one.

First of all Tacit Blue had NOTHING to do with the F-117 program. Once a program is in use, they don't designate a completely different airframe as a different letter. That's like saying the F-15 is the F-15A, and the F-16 is the F-15B, and the F-14 is the F-15C. You may see some radical departures SYSTEM wise between an A and B model, but you will NOT see a completely different airframe get the same designation with a different letter. Tacit Blue never got a designation, because it was never put into production.

Secondly, I love how the TAW-50 supposedly skims the atmosphere to get more oxygen. Too bad space craft, and even most military craft use LIQUID oxygen for their O2 systems. You don't refill them by opening a valve and adding more air to them.

Third, don't you think that SOMEONE would have noticed the new space station being built? I mean come on guys. You'd have to have dozens or even hundreds of rockets being launched to put the components into space, you'd have to have astronauts up there to put them together..... The supposed military space plane doesn't have the cargo capacity to haul them up, and we don't have any heavy lift rockets besides the space shuttle to haul them up, so when were they put up by the shuttles? Between the sattelites it's carried (and launched on video), the ISS components it's carried up (and shown on video), and the Hubble servicing, when did they secretly launch them to put a military space station up there?

- Anti- / Gravity

What more can I say about it if I don't even have that information my self? I never claimed I knew how the technology works beside the information on the internet on anti-gravity.

- Materials

Same thing, never claimed I knew.

- Logic

Ask the government, not me.

- Secrecy

Would you want to share this information with the enemy?

- Pricetags

I don't know!!!

- YOUR SOURCES!!!

Check RATS,
Possible contact with USG AI system.

Other sources are mainly the internet.

as for:

I say this is real with little doubt in my mind.

I suppose I did say this, but then again this is my own opinion, I did say little doubt didn't I? as in there is SOME doubt which you are completely ignoring

I do apologize for this statement, I did not mean to say: this is real! it exist!

This topic should be moved to Aliens and UFO's I think, I am growing tired of these questions making me seem like someone claiming something.

All I am saying is that it matches research I have done on the subject, mainly information gathered from online sources and an obscure contact that i'm still on the fence about if it's real at all.

BTW, I am trying to find the F-117B designation for the TACIT BLUE project but I am not finding anything, I will update this thread when I do.

Here is some information on some obscure designations, according to this the TACIT BLUE project have a YF-11* designation but not YF-113, I don't know where I heard that but I am sure it was mentioned here on ATS...

[edit on 5/27/2006 by GrOuNd_ZeRo]

If Tacit Blue was developed at the same time as the Have Blue/F-117 then how could it have an F-117B designation? The F-117 didn't even get that designation until it went into production, and that was after several years of development of the Have Blue. So if Tacit Blue came out FIRST, then THAT should have been the F-117A if it had an F-117 designation.

Originally posted by GrOuNd_ZeRo
- Anti- / Gravity

Then how do you claim it exists?

- Secrecy

Would you want to share this information with the enemy?

Dur...uh...the size of the craft sherlock.

It's too big, how do you do it?

Other sources are mainly the internet.

It only costs $30 to make a website on a domain and post something up to make it believable...big woop.

As far as secrecy...well uh...buddy, your "manufacturer" just leaked the info... :shk:

Your disrespectful tone is getting on my nerves.

I NEVER CLAIMED IT WAS REAL! I just felt I might be in my OWN OPINION!

-sighs, deep breath-

It only costs $30 to make a website on a domain and post something up to make it believable...big woop.

with that logic you might as well stop using the internet because everything could be fake right?

It might be big, but as I already stated, it can very well hidden in the desert, in orbit or even in the ocean, THAT'S how it will be kept a secret.

I don't claim I know the truth about this nor do I believe my sources without a shadow of a doubt, I am just very open minded to it and I Believe the US is withhelding technology that we are not aware of. (for reasons unknown.)

Originally posted by GrOuNd_ZeRo
Your disrespectful tone is getting on my nerves.

Your stubborness is getting on my nerves, use some common sense.

It might be big, but as I already stated, it can very well hidden in the desert, in orbit or even in the ocean, THAT'S how it will be kept a secret.

Desert, no one has satelites in orbit?

In Orbit, no one else is in space?

Ocean, no one has sonar?

Desert, no one has satelites in orbit?

As I already said before, there have been pictures of a triangle seen by a telescope, I can not proof these as real but it's possible that it is, do spy satelites look up? no...and in Area-51, they only do their test when they KNOW no satelites capable of peeking on A-51 are scheduelled to pass over, so it's save to say that they might be doing the same for TR-3B test right?

In Orbit, no one else is in space?

Not generally, only the international space station.

Ocean, no one has sonar?

who is actually looking? do we even know if sonar will be effective?

I am just defending the argument of it being real or not, I can say what I like if I think it's real or not but I am not claiming it's real because I have no proof, it seems you made up your mind though, I actually haven't yet, I am extremely open minded.

I hope I yet again cleared things up.

I hope I yet again cleared things up.

You know, you actually haven't...

Sonar:

who is actually looking? do we even know if sonar will be effective?

Considering it's in the ocea, and most countries bordering the ocean use passive sonar very frequently...how is it that some other ships wouldn't have seen it? Any ship that'd detect something of this size would think to take evasive action.

Orbit:

Not generally, only the international space station.

And anyone else who goes up, and of course the people who are looking up from the ground...national and international telescope sites...I guess they wouldn't see it either.

As I already said before, there have been pictures of a triangle seen by a telescope, I can not proof these as real but it's possible that it is, do spy satelites look up? no...and in Area-51, they only do their test when they KNOW no satelites capable of peeking on A-51 are scheduelled to pass over, so it's save to say that they might be doing the same for TR-3B test right?

What does this have to do with satelites? Based on size, there isn't even a shot in hell it'd stay hidden in even area 51! Sat shots don't even show a facility large enough to shelter such a craft! Don't give me that underground BS... there are no elevators large enough to bring that plane up. For gods sake.

Who says you need elevators?

It is possible to have a large enough hanger built into a mountain, you need underground, afterall a mountain is merely elevated terrain.

There is a facility believed to be built into the mountains at Groomlake called S-4.

However I am unaware of any substantiated evidence that could prove this turth.

Shattered OUT...

While that may be true, there haven't been any images of such facilities, or roads/runways which would allow the craft to be transported to a runway or launch facility. You are correct however in saying that this is possible. Thanks for bringing that up.

Just trying to include all rational un-biased possibilites, not really favoring a side here, I believe in putting all information on the table before coming to conclusions.

Well, if you're making secret mountain base facilities that you want to be kept secret, are you going to build runways and roads headed towards them? And can a satellite distinguish a dirt road from space?

Shattered OUT...

Considering some spy satelites can get overhead shots of a certain person or location that someone might be looking for, I would believe that, it could be destiguished if indented enough. In which case, that would go back to my little spill off with Clinton in the 90's, the fact that the plane if in service now, and if there are twenty of them, would've had to have been built then, the Russians had field days.

Plus, why would they keep something of this magnatude in such an obvious place? That doesn't make much sense either.

Originally posted by ShatteredSkies
There is a facility believed to be built into the mountains at Groomlake called S-4.
Shattered OUT...

This is believed only by dedicated conspiracy theorists and Bob Lazar subscribers. As you said there is absolutely NO evidence that S-4 or anything of its kind exists. I think if it did exist then there would be some sign of excavation, an entrance or vetilation, especially if it was housing this large aircraft there would have to be someway of getting it in there, or maybe it could use its antigrav .

Well guarding the world's most best kept secrets require SOME effort to hide them.

It's amazing how so many people are so closed to these possibilities. If you think about it, why would the government dump so much money into defending it's most valuable assets and make no effort to hide it? So it needs structures and roads and construction jutting out of the mountain side? Just because we can't find it, doesn't mean it's not there.

Once again, this is all speculation, I'm not preaching this as truth.

Shattered OUT...