TR-3B Patent!

originally posted by: Blue Shift
When did this whole TR-3B stuff first start anyway? I was just thinking that if it was fairly long ago (20 years? More?) then they should be test flying that TR-4B -- or X-76M, or whatever it's called -- pretty soon.

Seems like the TR-3B stuff is old news.

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the TR-3B fiction was initially created by Edgar Fouche, maybe presented around 1998 or so.

Fouche's story was that he talked to a lawyer about what he could write about. The lawyer told Fouche as long as he labeled his work as "fiction" he could write what he wanted. (Fouche sort of smirked or winked, as if to imply that he was really going to tell some truth but label it as fiction.) But it really was fiction, no matter how much he winked to imply it wasn't. This is from AlienScientists write-up about Fouche.

www.alienscientist.com...

Ed Fouche and his company Fouche Media Associates have produced several graphic renderings of the TR-3B, but no solid photographs or other documentation have ever been produced to confirm the craft's existance or technical details of how it's alleged anti-gravity propulsion system operates. Through my own scientific investigations into the minute details Ed Fouche has given regarding the TR-3B's propulsion system, I have concluded that the information has no technical value and was likely fabricated by Ed in an effort to combine stories about the Nazi Bell Device with the Belgian Wave of Triangular UFO sightings... so that his story would be more believable to the UFO research community.

originally posted by: penroc3
a reply to: Type1338
i got to see some of its neat tricks, that being said nothing it did was so far outside of bleeding edge science to make it appear ET.

it zipped around silently did turns tighter than 90degrees on a dime and appears to move away so fast if i had blinked i would say it just disappeared.


whatever this thing is using it is not running on jetfuel or any other conventional power source.

That's not a fair or thoughtful statement. You can't fault a person for thinking what they witnessed was possibly ET if all we have been accustomed to is fuel induction / combustion loud as hell flight for the past 60 years. Witnessing something turning 90 degrees on a dime and moving at a speed so fast as you lose sight certainly carries ET qualities.

When I witnessed the TR-3B (or whatever the hell it's called) the very first thing I thought was, "I just witnessed a UFO". And for the record I'm more familiar with things that fly around in the sky than the average person. I can say this now but couldn't back in the day but I saw the F-117 in the middle east before anyone (in general) knew they existed. I've seen quite a few interesting things over the years so when I witnessed what I did it was a VERY natural progression to wonder if what I witnessed was ET.

It defied anything and everything I've ever witnessed.

For the record I do believe there are 2 type of UAPs.

1. Ours. Which are a really crappy version of "theirs"
2. Theirs.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: Blue Shift
When did this whole TR-3B stuff first start anyway? I was just thinking that if it was fairly long ago (20 years? More?) then they should be test flying that TR-4B -- or X-76M, or whatever it's called -- pretty soon.

Seems like the TR-3B stuff is old news.

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the TR-3B fiction was initially created by Edgar Fouche, maybe presented around 1998 or so.

Totally irrelevant. The point is many have witnessed them and they exist regardless of the context or name applied. It's just another black project that will come to light at some point at they (almost) always do.

originally posted by: Type1338
Totally irrelevant. The point is many have witnessed them and they exist regardless of the context or name applied. It's just another black project that will come to light at some point at they (almost) always do.

Depends on the context of the question.

If someone asks if there are unidentified black triangles, you can answer yes. By the way it would be nice if you or somebody can get some decent video of what you're talking about. Not only is the TR-3B story fake, but so far all the alleged TR-3B videos I've seen are computer-generated fake videos. Now that everyone has phone cams with them all the time, someone should be able to capture something real on video.

But if someone asks about the TR-3B, I still think it's not irrelevant to make distinction that is a work of fiction by Edgar Fouche. The designation is likely fictitious and Fouche's purported propulsion system definitely is fictitious, as alienscientist points out. The navy's patents by Pais are real patents but the technology they describe seems no less fictitious.

I do think it's relevant to distinguish between these kinds of stories. Mixing the fake stories in with the real ones can only lead to confusion, but maybe that's what some people spreading disinformation want, like the intelligence community.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: Type1338

I do think it's relevant to distinguish between these kinds of stories. Mixing the fake stories in with the real ones...

How would know what a "fake" story is versus a "real" story? Talk about an oxymoron because you can prove neither. Posters like you serve no purpose in threads so I question your motive when you make oxymoronic comments like that.

This thread is about the TR-3B. Regardless of its naming convention the point (as I have made multiple times) is enough people have witnessed them now. I personally witnessed one and now I have a clearer understanding that what I witnessed was not ET but was man made.

You can continue to babble to yourself, now.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the TR-3B fiction was initially created by Edgar Fouche, maybe presented around 1998 or so.

IUFOC presentation in '98 where he also introduced Metamaterials/Quasicrystals into the TR3B legend

I do wonder where he got this accelerated plasma idea from though..... disruption of a "magnetic field" is unlikely to yield "89% anti gravity" any time soon .....it seems like a very none intuitive random guess in context of explaining a triangular aerospace craft made out of Metamaterials...

Along come credible SME's- Dr.'s Pais and Sheehy with the answer- they CAN get a controlled decoupling of the stress energy tensor by accelerating exotic matter in none linear delay mediums using a similarly shaped aerospace vehicle.

Life imitates art???

originally posted by: Type1338
How would know what a "fake" story is versus a "real" story? Talk about an oxymoron because you can prove neither.

Fouche said himself that his lawyer told him to label his story as fiction so he could write about it. However I have problems with his implication that he could write about classified material just by labeling it as fiction. I don't think you could really get away with that if you were truly leaking advanced classified technology in sufficient detail for adversaries to utilize. As Zaphod said earlier in this thread, and I agree with this:

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Crumbles

Even if they do exist, that doesn't mean the TR3B does or that anything said about it is true. It always amazes me how they can keep something a secret for 30+ years, but what should be the biggest secret in the US military has every detail leaked online, and suddenly they can't do anything about it being leaked.

Does that even begin to make sense to you? It sure doesn't to me.

So what I'm saying is that Fouche himself labeled his TR-3B story as fiction. How much more evidence do you need that the TR-3B story is fiction, when the author says it is fiction? Apply some common sense like Zaphod did and as he says, even if the advanced craft exist, how can you think the TR-3B story is not fiction?

Then there are the technical issues with Fouche's claim. Some people have some technical training and may not be familiar with advanced technologies but can recognize obvious BS when they see it. The famous example of this is the Turboencabulator video.

"Turbo Encabulator" the Original

The narrator and writer is Bud Haggert. He was the top voice-over talent on technical films. He wrote the script because he rarely understood the technical copy he was asked to read and felt he shouldn't be alone.

Non-technical people may have trouble telling it's fiction, but technical people have no problems telling it's fiction, so if you don't have the technical training yourself to be able to tell, then you don't have many options, but there are ways to tell for people with adequate training. Regarding the topic of this thread, it's not just me who thinks the patent technology is not plausible, it's every physicist you talk to who has read them. BASSPLYR checked with some physicists, you can do the same:

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
Hate to break this to you but i came across that patent years ago. Ran it past accomplished physicists and it seriously fails muster.

So there are some means of telling fact from fiction. The author of the TR-3B story says it's fiction (while trying to imply it's not). There are many technical and non-technical ways to surmise it really is fiction.

As for secret flying triangles, plenty of people claim to have seen them, but any good video evidence seems to be lacking so far. Saying the TR-3B story is fiction doesn't mean secret triangles don't exist, but I wish all these people saying they see them all the time would whip out their cameras and get some good video and share, because I'd like to see them too.

originally posted by: Jukiodone
Along come credible SME's- Dr.'s Pais and Sheehy with the answer- they CAN get a controlled decoupling of the stress energy tensor by accelerating exotic matter in none linear delay mediums using a similarly shaped aerospace vehicle.

Life imitates art???

As explained in my last post there are ways to tell BS with some training and the experts don't think the Pais patent is plausible:

The Navy Finally Speaks Up About Its Bizarre "UFO Patent" Experiments

Despite every physicist we have spoken to over the better part of two years asserting that the "Pais Effect" has no scientific basis in reality and the patents related to it were filled with pseudo-scientific jargon, NAWCAD confirmed they were interested enough in the patents to spend more than a half-million dollars over three years developing experiments and equipment to test Pais' theories.

The Pais patents read like a modern "Turbo-encabulator".

Even non-technical people should be able to apply some common sense to determine it makes no sense for such patents to be public. This is not a technical analysis, but it's the kind of question every thinking person should be asking about these patents:

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: sled735

Considering that the government can grab and classify a patent at will, do you think they're going to leave multiple patents in the open? The supposed TR3B would be a deep black SAP. But we supposedly know everything but the names of the pilots that fly it.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

yeah but we DONT know how true it is.

the patient office makes it hard to get one so it not like he sent it in and they just gave it to him, both the inventor and Navy seem to think it is real enough as they said they had a working prototype.


for all we know to make anti gravity is something simple, like a magnet but for gravity.

originally posted by: penroc3
a reply to: Arbitrageur

yeah but we DONT know how true it is.

the patient office makes it hard to get one so it not like he sent it in and they just gave it to him, both the inventor and Navy seem to think it is real enough as they said they had a working prototype.

Who do you mean by "him"? Are you talking about the OP patent or the Pais patents?

First, it's not that hard to get a patent. With the exception of perpetual motion machines, no working model is normally required. There are numerous examples of patents granted for obviously unworkable devices.

Docs Show Navy Got 'UFO' Patent Granted By Warning Of Similar Chinese Tech Advances

Just because something is patented doesn’t mean it’s currently in production or even possible.

Second, this patent was rejected initially:

The application was initially rejected by Patent Examiner Philip Bonzell on the grounds that "there is no such thing as a 'repulsive EM energy field,'" and that "when referring to the specifications as to ascertain about the microwave emitters needed in this system it is seen that for a high energy electromagnetic field to polarize a quantum vacuum as claimed it would take 10^9 [T]eslas and 10^18 V/m." That's roughly the equivalent to the magnetic strength generated by most magnetars and more electricity than what is produced by nuclear reactors.

The Navy intervened and claimed they needed it because the Chinese are working on such tech. But what Zaphod said about the TR-3B also applies to other advanced technology. How does it make any sense to put such highly important technologies in the open and available to adversaries, when they could easily make them secret and not give the secrets away to adversaries? So all technical issues aside, that bit of logic seems to fail a critical thinking test.

What passes a critical thinking test is a thought process like this one, which is the only way I have been able to put the Pais patents being public in perspective:

a reply to: Arbitrageur
. JMHO, The essential Ed Fouche debunking. Jeremy dismissed him as a fake and with it went the baby and bath water of the Tactical Recon 3 platform.

www.alienscientist.com...


Except, there are some problems, as Jeremy does state himself. In his presentation he brings up ideas like quasicrystals, meta materials, etc. prior to the mainstream acceptance of such materials engineering as factual developments. Arb says the pro ported tr-3evidence is cgi and fake. I beg to differ. The

Big black tri platforms are like the black swan. They exist only if you actually witnessAnd that will be difficult because of exactly the material EF mentioned in his famous or infamous video.

So, triangles and saucers, gravity nullification using Hg80 and some other oxides at how many k atm or gravity amps using a stable 115 , Arb says they’re both fake. So, does AS. Then what is driving this aerial phenomena, Arb, or is everyone suffering from the same mass delusion and cgi fakery ?

btw, rip Ed fouche. We wouldn’t be having this debate without you. My understanding is he suffered some bad ptsd and when alien Rapture came out, the threats began.

originally posted by: play4keeps
Then what is driving this aerial phenomena, Arb, or is everyone suffering from the same mass delusion and cgi fakery?

The CGI fakes are pretty fake, I don't think there's much doubt about some of those. If there are any videos you think are real, feel free to post them.

I don't have any doubts that the military has some triangular shaped craft in the secret and undisclosed realm, but we have seen time and time and time again that eyewitness descriptions are less than 100% accurate, especially when it comes to performance characteristics. Triangle shape, I have no reason to doubt, but for performance characteristics I would need to see the video evidence (that's not CGI) to form any opinion since I can't take eyewitness descriptions of that at face value, especially not from "highly trained observers" like Chad Underwood who says his UFO in his video is defying the laws of physics when I can assure you after analyzing his video, it is not.

Whatever is flying around out there, I'm sure it is not being propelled by element 115 in any way.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Pais' IEEE paper doesn't seem to have received any proper scientific rebuttal.


We can hand waive the patents away but here's a properly formatted academic paper, published in a mainstream publication by a "credible" PhD that invokes many of the same "out there" principles which make up the alleged "Pais effect" in the patents.

There's even equations.
I've read point by point refutations by credible people on similar submissions with much less meat.....and this one scraped mainstream media attention so is prime to be shot down.

Admittedly- I cant get my head around the alleged effects derived from acceleration/gradient/phase change in this paper - but I cant see any made up words or maths either.

a reply to: Jukiodone
Do you think Brandolini's Law might apply?

The Secrets of Life, the Universe, and Everything

Brandolini’s Law: “The amount of energy needed to refute bull# is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it.”

I've never seen a proper debunk of this properly peer-reviewed paper saying we may be inside a black hole. Does that mean we are in a black hole or may be in a black hole? I doubt it. I think Brandolini's law applies. What does anybody have to gain by putting that much effort into refuting this, or the Pais paper?

Radial motion into an Einstein-Rosen bridge

...our own Universe may be the interior of a black hole existing inside another universe.

A person claiming to have a fusion patent said this about the fusion patent from Pais (His paper doesn't really add much to the patent, I think it's still lacking what this person says).

Scientist Behind Navy's “UFO Patents” Filed One for a Compact Fusion Reactor

As someone with a fusion startup, and a recently issued fusion patent I read the actual patent to see what I could learn.

In my opinion, the patent does not describe anything useful. There are no descriptions of the shape of the magnetic field this device is intended to produce, and is about as useful as saying "Aim a bunch of magnets toward the center. It'll work, trust me."

Links to website of his employer and patent:
www.ddprofusion.com...
www.ddprofusion.com/US10354761.pdf
I briefly reviewed his patent which does seem to have more specifics than either Pais's paper or patent.

If the purpose of the Navy patents is to misdirect efforts of China, it would make sense to leave out specifically helpful information like that so they won't know if they are on the right track or not.

There's also the issue that his math in the paper you cited links back to two of his other even more dubious papers

V. C ONCLUSION —F EASIBILITY OF PCFD C ONCEPT
Using physics explained in two recently published peer-reviewed articles by Pias [5], [6]

see reference number 6:

6 S. C. Pais, “A Hybrid craft using an inertial mass modification device,”
in Proc. AIAA SPACE Astronaut. Forum Expo., 2017, p. 5343.

That's the reference mentioned in my earlier post where magnetic field strength would be magnetar level.
Most scientists know magnetar-level field strength would be fatal, but Pais doesn't seem to care.

What is the strongest magnetic field possible?

While the destructive nature of strong magnetic fields places a practical limit on how strong of a field earthlings can create, it does not place a fundamental limit. Magnetic fields that surpass about a billion Gauss are so strong that they compress atoms to tiny needles, destroying the ordinary chemical bonds that bind atoms into molecules, and making chemistry as we know it impossible. Each atom is compressed into a needle shape because the electrons that fill most of the atom are forced by the magnetic field to spin in tiny circles. While such extremely strong magnetic fields are not possible on earth, they do exist in highly-magnetized stars called magnetars. A magnetar is a type of neutron star left over from a supernova. The intense magnetic field of a magnetar is created by superconducting currents of protons inside the neutron star, which were established by the manner in which the matter collapsed to form a neutron star.

The magnetar level magnetic field Pais proposes without batting an eye:
Docs Show Navy Got 'UFO' Patent Granted By Warning Of Similar Chinese Tech Advances

The application was initially rejected by Patent Examiner Philip Bonzell on the grounds that "there is no such thing as a 'repulsive EM energy field,'" and that "when referring to the specifications as to ascertain about the microwave emitters needed in this system it is seen that for a high energy electromagnetic field to polarize a quantum vacuum as claimed it would take 10^9 [T]eslas and 10^18 V/m." That's roughly the equivalent to the magnetic strength generated by most magnetars and more electricity than what is produced by nuclear reactors.

1 Gauss is equal to 0.0001 tesla
So, 1000000000 Tesla is 10000000000000 Gauss
That's one of the reasons the patent examiner rejected the patent application initially, how much handwaving are you going to do to try to take that seriously? And the paper you cited cites that same 10000000000000 Gauss paper as the source for his equation. So maybe he didn't make up a word so much as a fictitious magnetic field strength. Not fiction in that magnetars can do it, but humans probably can't and even if they did it would be fatal.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
As for secret flying triangles, plenty of people claim to have seen them, but any good video evidence seems to be lacking so far. Saying the TR-3B story is fiction doesn't mean secret triangles don't exist, but I wish all these people saying they see them all the time would whip out their cameras and get some good video and share, because I'd like to see them too.

That would be very nice. There are several people on this very site who have reported seeing them and pretty close up, too. But they've been in situations where good photos are hard to get -- at night, along a highway where it's hard to stop, only there for a short period of time. You have to give credit to whoever is flying them for being so adept at sneaking them past people so skillfully.

One report on ATS mentioned seeing one near Point Dume / Port Hueneme / north of Los Angeles. If you look at a map, there is a sparsely-populated mountain range there that could be used by the Skunk Works folks to fly their stuff out to sea toward the Channel Islands and beyond with very little witness involvement. So who knows?

Better photos are definitely needed.

a reply to: Blue Shift
Another fake appeared, which has apparently fooled some people. Mick West took the trouble to point out why it was fake, then the original was posted on youtube saying it was fake. But eventually someone could address the things that makes them look fake to make a more realistic looking fake. I wonder if this looks anything like what people have seen.

A fake "TR-3B" UFO in the woods

I'm still hoping to see a video that's not fake someday.