Big Flying Triangle . New York Mills . 10.5.2020

A vid was released in Nov 2013... not sure if it was released prior to 2013. Anyway it shows a pair of TR-3B’s triangles looks to be a possible test flight.....

Does anyone know if this is a hoax and got debunked? or does it look legit to you??

Below are screenshots and it’s mention in military.com...






Hey... is it any wonder why the Space Force logo has a triangle shape in it’s logo? Yes, I know people say it’s a rip off of the Star Trek logo..... but beyond that ... the shape and what we may be testing for our arsenal, let’s just say, the logo of a triangle shape is a foreshadow of things to come...imo. Sometimes the truth is put in plain sight.



Btw.... before there was a triangle, and a chevron, and a boomerang, there was the A-12 Avenger II (shut down for funding reasons at least in the public’s eyes, I suspect it was shifted to the black budget programs for further development to include exotic propulsion systems and so today, black triangles may be the results), before that there was a delta wing, before a delta wing there was and still is flying wings which were in concept and in test flights both by the Germans and Americans as early as WWII and after.

a reply to: Ophiuchus1

The video itself looks legit of what was recorded. But what it shows is what people debate. They are craft in the sky. No debate needed!

Now, the question becomes is this our triangle craft [ours]?or theirs?

Who knows! But chances are that it is ours in an area they thought no one would be in. Probably why most sightings are in low populated places and/or weird times when most people are sleeping. If you are leaving base, wouldn’t you want your Iceman to be there??

I feel the need for speed!

I doubt anybody can debunk the video. It hasn’t happened yet and I don’t think it will happen if at all.

There is clear photo from Seattle of one that I posted a link to because it was not credited to the author.

These things are real. They are most likely ours. And I believe that they are patrolling the skies keeping the Others from being part of our lives.

But I am weird that way (damn contactee disease!! The experience was not fun, or any place where you could have been the hero. That is the scary part!)

Very interesting!

I just don't trust people who yell hoax 5 minutes into a thread.

Imo, I believe they are ours (no proof) ... either drone controlled or pilot controlled. Whether ongoing new engineering by us, or reversed engineering from EBE vehicles.

I think what is on the video is the testing of these so called TR-3B’s. They are probably on a air test range in the high deserts like in Ca, Nv, Az...

The vid starts off while both vehicles are already in the air... one vehicle over the other in a precise formation hovering....

Preface: I have had to reduce the time for making the gif below from the video...to do so to be able to post here....sacrifices in quality and resolution and compression needed to be made.

The vid started with both TR-3B’s in a precision tandem hover...then also a third object is seen. By the flight path of this slow moving object.... imo, it’s a helicopter (no proof) doing a flyby of both TR-3B’s.... the helicopter could be part of the test as an observer perhaps videoing both vehicles close up for documentation purposes and or to check external test requirements and parameters of bothe vehicles while in the air....then the helicopter after it’s flyby leaves the framing of the camera on the ground doing the videoing. The camera then points to the two vehicles and the top vehicle starts to separate from its hover position over the vehicle below it.... the screenshots I posted previously are from the separation onward.

It is somewhat compelling that the blurred object(“helicopter”) scaled size , next to the “TR-3B’s” looks to be reasonable for air vehicles since TR-3B’s have not been to my knowledge... been known to be HUGE aircraft.

My mind rationalizes it how I interpret the video clip.

So I now await for somebody to tell me it’s fake and it’s been debunked and give the links to wherever to proof their assertions.

I don’t mind eating crow... if what I think is my opinion and I’m “totally wrong” .... I’ll get over it 😉

The looped gif of the vid....

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: oloufo
it was debunked on twitter.
twitter.com...

People are speedy at debunking these days. It was good footage for a hoax, though. Odd how the reflective surface really doesn't show up in any of the image manipulation. Just not bright enough, I suppose.

Gotta disagree. Good footage would be a video that is clear and sharp.

I want to believe. But it is hard when we keep getting potato cam evidence, until we get some decent video with multiple independent witnesses it's always going to be easy to 'debunk' these things.

Seriously I could go out tonight and make a video just like this one with my Quadcopter. Except it would be better quality more than likely.

So yes, I want to believe, but that won't happen until I see such things with my own eyes or UFO evidence catches up with 2020 hardware capabilities and what modern HD cameras are actually able to do.

We really need to raise the bar on what 'good evidence' is. It's been way too low for way too long.
When will we start getting video and photos that don't look like they were filmed in the 70's or like badly made CGI?
Hope it occurs in my life time.

Well as I've mentioned the individual sightings and reports don't really stir my batter, in my opinion it's all but statistically impossible that every account of these craft is a hoax. So at this point it seems like a cursory question to ask if anyone has ever attempted a proof of concept model with this high pressure super cooled mercury ring mechanism by which the TR-3B are supposed to operate. The concept of super cooling and highly pressurizing it seems odd to me, being that mercury's thermal expansion rate is significant. The main rationale I can imagine is that this would be done to make sacrificial components of a device last longer, and may not be completely necessary for a simple proof of concept.

Outside of the very real danger of mercury vapor toxicity the only research engineering hurdle I would anticipate is the need for somewhat expensive modulation and observation equipment. Surely not everyone has all the needed equipment laying around, but I'd be interested in hearing about any such tests or speculative feasibility studies for a baseline principle exhibit which have been or could be done. I have my own ideas about how to go about it, but ideas which regardless fall short within established physics all the same.

originally posted by: AtomicKangaroo
We really need to raise the bar on what 'good evidence' is. It's been way too low for way too long.
When will we start getting video and photos that don't look like they were filmed in the 70's or like badly made CGI?
Hope it occurs in my life time.

Agreed. My personal bar is extremely high, and it includes hard evidence. Nobody's been able to produce what I would consider to be solid proof of anything. But I do like an occasional "pretty good" video, or at least "somewhat entertaining" video.

Unfortunately, we don't live in the past where various researchers and authors would sort through the trash for us and only put the best images in their books. These days, any Joe Blow with a camera can upload his thrilling images of balloons, jet contrails, iPhone lens flares, blurred birds, drones, CGI or regularly old "toss a pan in the air" hoaxes, and so on, loading up the field with a lot of raw garbage.

Or maybe a lot of it is disinformation, which is intended to get people so sick of useless or crazy junk that they just give up on the topic completely. If that's they case, they're doing a helluva job.

originally posted by: AstroDog
Well as I've mentioned the individual sightings and reports don't really stir my batter, in my but I'd be interested in hearing about any such tests or speculative feasibility studies for a baseline principle exhibit which have been or could be done. I have my own ideas about how to go about it, but ideas which regardless fall short within established physics all the same

Give this a once over....maybe it will answer your questions

Mercury ring and Mercury propellant is mentioned

Look for this verbatim and click on it .....



And you should get this PDF you can read while it’s online or download it from where you see it.



Annnnnd there’s this Chinese patent....using Mercury

patents.google.com...


One more link using Mercury....

worldwidescience.org...

a reply to: AtomicKangaroo

When that good footage comes in, it will be immediately debunked as CGI because it will be "too good to be true". There are no winners in this debate, only the perpetrators of the phenomenon...whether they be human or non-human.

originally posted by: fromtheskydown
a reply to: AtomicKangaroo

When that good footage comes in, it will be immediately debunked as CGI because it will be "too good to be true". There are no winners in this debate, only the perpetrators of the phenomenon...whether they be human or non-human.

That's why there always has to be some kind of physical evidence to back it up.

However, I have to say that I've never seen the kind of footage you describe, either. There's always some kind of problem with it, even with "Skinny Bob." So until that kind of footage actually appears, your hypothesis will remain untested. Perhaps it will depend on the footage.

Imagine a Main Street in an ordinary small town. A flying saucer appears. Everyone gets agitated. One person has a high quality SLR-type camera in hand and manages to get footage as it lands on the street. Everybody except a few people scatter. Still holding the camera rock-solid, the footage continues to show actual aliens -- let's say they look like crabs -- descend from the ship and talk with a couple of the people who stayed. They chat a bit, communicate a little, then get back in their ship and take off.

No hard evidence. But something like that, with dozens of witnesses and clear images, just MIGHT be believable. But we still wouldn't know for sure where they came from, what they were really doing, or why. Even if they SAID they were from Zeta Reticuli and studying us, we couldn't be sure because they might be big fat liars.

But, as you know, nobody has anything like that. Maybe someday. Maybe tomorrow.

originally posted by: AstroDog
Well as I've mentioned the individual sightings and reports don't really stir my batter, in my opinion it's all but statistically impossible that every account of these craft is a hoax. So at this point it seems like a cursory question to ask if anyone has ever attempted a proof of concept model with this high pressure super cooled mercury ring mechanism by which the TR-3B are supposed to operate.

Zaphod is one of the aircraft experts here. From his past posts, he doesn't seem to have any doubts of the existence of triangle craft, maybe more than one version, maybe multiple SAPs. (secret projects)

But one thing he seems pretty sure of is that the TR-3B claims are bogus, specifically the TR-3B designation. Probably also the claims of anti-gravity capability since he says the military is only 10 years ahead of the public sector in some areas, even behind in other areas. In fact part of Fouche's claim is that the tech is "far ahead of any imaginable technology" which certainly doesn't imply to me 10 years or even 50 years ahead of current technology.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: BeefNoMeat

I absolutely despise the person that concocted the TR-3B. A pox on their household, and I hope they have fleas in their genitals.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Whatsthisthen

Back in the 90s, around the time that the TR-3B made its first appearance, the Air Force used a Tier system for their UAV designations.

Tier N/A was the Small/Micro family.
Tier I was Low Altitude, Long Endurance
Tier II was the MALE such as the Predator
Tier II+ was the HALE such as the Global Hawk

And the most likely cause of the designation TR-3B, Tier III. Tier III- was High Altiude, Long Endurance, Low Observable. The Lockheed/Boeing RQ-3A Darkstar was going to fulfill that role until they ran into development problems, resulting in the loss of an airframe. Tier III- turned into TR-3, and since there was a supposed TR-3A Astra (a whole other issue considering ASTRA wasn't an airframe at all), then the "new aircraft" had to be the TR-3B. Despite there being minor differences between an A and B designation, the TR-3A and TR-3B are supposedly radically different aircraft, with the TR-3B being some kind of alien hybrid triangle that can do everything from hover, to fly in space, and at ridiculous speeds.

So the TR-3B designation is almost certainly fake, and so are the other claims that go along with it. Edgar Fouche said he talked to lawyer before writing his book and the lawyer said he could publish anything as long as he called it fiction. The implication from Fouche was that he can call it fiction even if it's not, but the fact is, he does call it fiction and that's what the TR-3B is. Some other triangle craft not designated TR-3B in secret projects would not be fiction but we wouldn't know much about them publicly, that's the whole idea behind secret projects.

I have my own ideas about how to go about it, but ideas which regardless fall short within established physics all the same.

In my opinion pursuing the work Fouche labeled as fiction would be a total waste of time. If there are triangle craft in secret projects, Skunk works or whoever is involved would be doing their best to keep the secrets, well, secret. You wouldn't know them to try them out. But I doubt if anti-gravity or inertial mass reduction are among the secrets. A lot of the claims of amazing performance are probably witness misperception because even though everyone has phone cams now, nobody ever seems to record any such thing. Even the pilot who recorded the Tic Tac video claims it shows an object defying the laws of physics, but, the video doesn't show that, so that claim and other extraordinary claims of physics-defying performance have zero extraordinary evidence to back them up. Just seeing a triangle craft is not that extraordinary though. The F117 could be described as a triangle, and when it was a secret project, it was a "UFO", since it wasn't public knowledge.

originally posted by: Ophiuchus1
Give this a once over....maybe it will answer your questions

Mercury ring and Mercury propellant is mentioned

That's not even in the same ballpark as Fouche's nonsense story about mercury. The only thing in common is the word mercury.

ufoupdateslist.com...

Mr. Fouche describes the TR-3B's propulsion system as follows:

"A circular, plasma filled accelerator ring called the Magnetic Field Disrupter, surrounds the rotatable crew compartment and is far ahead of any imaginable technology... The plasma, mercury based, is pressurized at 250,000 atmospheres at a temperature of 150 degrees Kelvin, and accelerated to 50,000 rpm to create a super-conductive plasma with the resulting gravity disruption.

The MFD generates a magnetic vortex field, which disrupts or neutralizes the effects of gravity on mass within proximity, by 89 percent..."

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
Zaphod is one of the aircraft experts here. From his past posts, he doesn't seem to have any doubts of the existence of triangle craft, maybe more than one version, maybe multiple SAPs. (secret projects)

But one thing he seems pretty sure of is that the TR-3B claims are bogus, specifically the TR-3B designation. Probably also the claims of anti-gravity capability since he says the military is only 10 years ahead of the public sector in some areas, even behind in other areas. In fact part of Fouche's claim is that the tech is "far ahead of any imaginable technology" which certainly doesn't imply to me 10 years or even 50 years ahead of current technology.

In my opinion pursuing the work Fouche labeled as fiction would be a total waste of time. If there are triangle craft in secret projects, Skunk works or whoever is involved would be doing their best to keep the secrets, well, secret. You wouldn't know them to try them out. But I doubt if anti-gravity or inertial mass reduction are among the secrets. A lot of the claims of amazing performance are probably witness misperception because even though everyone has phone cams now, nobody ever seems to record any such thing. Even the pilot who recorded the Tic Tac video claims it shows an object defying the laws of physics, but, the video doesn't show that, so that claim and other extraordinary claims of physics-defying performance have zero extraordinary evidence to back them up. Just seeing a triangle craft is not that extraordinary though. The F117 could be described as a triangle, and when it was a secret project, it was a "UFO", since it wasn't public knowledge.

Mr. Fouche describes the TR-3B's propulsion system as follows:

"A circular, plasma filled accelerator ring called the Magnetic Field Disrupter, surrounds the rotatable crew compartment and is far ahead of any imaginable technology... The plasma, mercury based, is pressurized at 250,000 atmospheres at a temperature of 150 degrees Kelvin, and accelerated to 50,000 rpm to create a super-conductive plasma with the resulting gravity disruption.

The MFD generates a magnetic vortex field, which disrupts or neutralizes the effects of gravity on mass within proximity, by 89 percent..."

Very interesting, thanks. Hope you don't mind I trimmed your quote for the sake of brevity. I have to admit that Fouche's claims are fantastical beyond belief. As far as hard evidence for triangular antigravity craft I have to agree there is none that I've caught wind of at all, but outside of the more lucrative channels I have heard more than enough accounts of silent physics defying triangular craft akin to the fabled TR-3B which makes me inclined to believe they do exist. Of course they could all be lying just the same, after all that is exactly how deception works. Very few people think "You know, that sounds absolutely ridiculous. It has to be true!", but nevertheless I find it compelling that these craft could exist outside of the embellishments of how they might work.

I like to approach the notions of certain propulsion systems from a sort of science fiction perspective, it's not actually scientific of course but more of an "if X is possible then Y and Z are possible" equation. Kind of like a thought experiment with loose roots in reality I suppose. Nowadays science fiction seems to be more like simple solar system dramas, with very little science in them at all, but I digress. While many properties of many chemical elements are radically changed under higher pressures, I find it hard to believe mercury leads to any mechanism for antigravity all the same. I faintly recall a small Russian team which claimed to have a machine that would make something like a 60kg block lose 1kg of weight when placed over the machine, supposedly it used a large spinning magnet levitated with coils. I can't track it down at the moment, but was wondering if someone would have brought it up in relation to my original question. There seems to be a trend that people believe simple HV fields, high gauss fields, special gyroscopes, or extraordinary elements which are bombarded or spun this way or that create an antigravity effect— very little of which is rooted in any kind of physical sense whatsoever. All the same disproving them (or proving them) verbatim would do a lot to advance the understanding of what is theoretically viable and what is not, which is why I ask about the mercury ring engine, not because I especially find it promising itself.

Ok ... I’ll play, let me take a stab at how TR-3B designation came into being...

TR = Triangle
3 = 3 tiped/corners/power plants
B = Black as in the color

If that’s not what it stands for... it does now to me 👍🏼 for lack of any true evidence.

(Mercury ring was a question from astrodog, I just supplied a pdf that mentions it in reference to ion thruster technology)

originally posted by: AstroDog
Very interesting, thanks. Hope you don't mind I trimmed your quote for the sake of brevity.

That's expected, quoting an entire long post is discouraged.

Of course they could all be lying just the same, after all that is exactly how deception works.

There were over 30 witnesses to this large "UFO", none of them are lying, they tell what they saw to the best of their ability. They said it hovered silently, which I don't think is deception.



It was one of the 10 best UFO cases ever. But now we know what it was, and we know that even when people tell the truth about UFOs beyond our technology, their statements cannot be relied upon. It may have appeared to hover silently, and block out the stars, but we know that's not what happened, despite the witness being truthful. Almost all witness descriptions of the size, distance and speed of a UFO are unreliable, except in special circumstances where they have some means of calibration, but that is rare for a UFO.

Chad Underwood claims he filmed an object with extreme acceleration, and he's a trained pilot, but the object didn't accelerate at all. I don't know if he's lying or just incompetent but he's a trained US Navy pilot, who should know acceleration when he sees it, but he was fooled by an optical illusion. So if an expert like him can be fooled, I don't see why you would take what any witness says at face value. Scientists generally don't, because they are well aware that eyewitnesses accounts are very unreliable, even when there is no intentional deception. Want proof? Here is tons of proof of that:

Seeing is Not Necessarily Believing.
The case above is referenced in that link, search the link for "Yukon".

Can an appreciation of the perceptual lessons of that mass sighting provide a reliable bridge between major unsolved UFO reports and some previously poorly understood prosaic stimuli??
Here are some eyewitness drawings of structured craft. The witnesses were not deceptive, but there was no structured craft:


Case Studies In Pilot Misperceptions Of "UFOs"

I don't think there's any deception in any of the above observational errors, but they are rather extreme in some cases. This pilot I'm not sure if he's being deceptive or not, but his video contradicts his claim:

Navy Pilot Who Filmed the ‘Tic Tac’ UFO Speaks: ‘It Wasn’t Behaving by the Normal Laws of Physics’
The fact is, the object in his video doesn't make any maneuvers a balloon can't make. The closing speed is all due to Underwood's aircraft, and the object hardly moves at all in the video, but the pilot can't tell that, unless he's lying. I'm not sure if he's lying or just fooled by the optical illusion. It's an important example to me because if we can't rely on a trained expert like this to tell us when they see rapid acceleration, then the accounts of other, less trained witnesses have even less value.

Navy pilot is wrong, the object he videoed DID behave by the normal laws of physics

a reply to: Blue Shift

There's no triangle to be seen at all.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
There were over 30 witnesses to this large "UFO", none of them are lying, they tell what they saw to the best of their ability. They said it hovered silently, which I don't think is deception.

It was one of the 10 best UFO cases ever. But now we know what it was, and we know that even when people tell the truth about UFOs beyond our technology, their statements cannot be relied upon. It may have appeared to hover silently, and block out the stars, but we know that's not what happened, despite the witness being truthful. Almost all witness descriptions of the size, distance and speed of a UFO are unreliable, except in special circumstances where they have some means of calibration, but that is rare for a UFO.

Navy Pilot Who Filmed the ‘Tic Tac’ UFO Speaks: ‘It Wasn’t Behaving by the Normal Laws of Physics’
The fact is, the object in his video doesn't make any maneuvers a balloon can't make. The closing speed is all due to Underwood's aircraft, and the object hardly moves at all in the video, but the pilot can't tell that, unless he's lying. I'm not sure if he's lying or just fooled by the optical illusion. It's an important example to me because if we can't rely on a trained expert like this to tell us when they see rapid acceleration, then the accounts of other, less trained witnesses have even less value.

Navy pilot is wrong, the object he videoed DID behave by the normal laws of physics

All very good food for thought. I saw you mentioned the mass sighting of the 30 people before, but I don't think I caught what it really was so I can't comment on that. I do agree that most UFO sightings are misreported known objects as in the link to text you posted and pictures. It would go to figure that a nebulous mass cluster reentering the atmosphere would be seen differently from different points of view, adding to confusion— maybe this is the explanation for the 30 people mass sighting you mentioned initially. If so, sorry for my slowness. There was another stir recently about a Space X booster being a UFO, which of course it was not. I think there's a distinction to be made between false positive identification and outright fabrication being deception, though. In any case both, at least in my opinion and I think we agree, are resoundingly more common than genuine reports.

Now I've never seen a UFO myself, but I have observed something that if I were to convey the experience you'd actually be wrong to believe me in my conclusions. I would be telling the truth of what I witnessed and have corroborating witnesses, it's just that based on what we all know to be undeniable it's much more likely a conventional explanation could account for the observations. So while I can sit there and swear up and down what I saw flies in the face of established norms and is subjectively verifiable, it remains subjectively verifiable only. I don't talk about it much and I certainly won't go in depth with it, because even though I am convinced of it I have to admit that someone else would be unduly unskeptical to be convinced of it as well. It's a mathematical game of likelihood in the end and I don't have enough to buy in, yet the phenomena exists to be explained either way.

There are multiple reports of multiple people looking up in the sky and seeing triangular noiseless craft dead to rights, most of them are not officially reported at all. Factor in the mountain of foo fighter radar contacts corroborated by pilot line of sight observation and it's hard to swallow the admittedly irrational notion that something is going on in our skies that we can't explain by citing a uniform book of known and concrete rationale. Furthermore, imagine I landed a saucer right on your front lawn tonight then got out and shook your hand, would you instantly believe I have invented antigravity and am in contact with aliens? I should hope not, I have no proof of all that while certainly can prove that I simply have a saucer and can shake your hand. You'd be wrong to draw those extra conclusions, though correct to explore them entirely. Having a trend toward dismissing it as observational error entirely wouldn't fair you very well in any case, that is given you're probably not prone to fantastic hallucinations. This is hardly a hyperbolic example when thumbing through sightings cases both official and unofficial.

As far as the Tic-Tac incident I admit as evidence of anything substantial it's also very underwhelming. I'm not even completely up on the case myself, I tend to grab on to more engineering and physics based stuff as I've admitted. That said, all of the fantastic claims of the object's behavior are simply claimed and not documented on the film that I saw. Of what I did see I can still conceivably explain it within down to earth methods as a misjudgment of distance relative to the altitude and speed of the respective observer and object, as I could explain many ISS and other orbital recordings of "UFO" objects being basically incorrect parallax evaluation in the human brain giving the impression of hard physics defying bodies. That is to say we see in 2D but our brains register 3D based on how objects move relative to one another and how light casts on them respectively, from this we register form and position. However this is immediately very easy to comprehend and rectify when you are looking from a perspective that changes vector along more than one plane, unlike the ISS and orbital explanations of fantastic phenomena.

Is it possible all the same, sure, though it drops far down from the most likely observational mistake in my opinion. I don't think it was a balloon, based on my experiences with advanced thermal optics it resembled a flame. Outside of the unsubstantiated claims of the pilots regarding the tic-tac's appearance in daylight and its behavior, which would have to be essentially outright lies, it could be accounted as ball lightning in my mind. The only thing I know for sure is that it's a very conspicuous set of circumstances and evidence. Compelling, sure, but not conclusive. As far as assailing or reinforcing any conclusions from it I wouldn't use anything from Corbell or Mick West as material on either side. I have read his posts on the matter over at metabunk and frankly find them lacking, I won't even go into what a ham Corbell is in contrast. Their problem, again, is drawing substantial conclusions on either side and neither of which I would camp on with much conviction.

Sore loser much? Provide better evidence and people might believe... how did we prove gorillas exist? They were considered myth by many yet we proved it.


a reply to: fromtheskydown

originally posted by: AstroDog
I wouldn't use anything from Corbell or Mick West as material on either side. I have read his posts on the matter over at metabunk and frankly find them lacking, I won't even go into what a ham Corbell is in contrast. Their problem, again, is drawing substantial conclusions on either side and neither of which I would camp on with much conviction.

It's not a question of "believe it because Mick West says so", in fact he doesn't know what the UFO is and identifying it is not his point. In the video I posted, his point is "no sudden moves" so it doesn't do what the pilot claims. It's not a matter of trusting him, he's not relying on you believing what he says because he says it, rather he points out features in the video which you can independently verify, like:

-The apparent leftward movement of the UFO, which is ordinarily not seen while it's being tracked because the camera is tracking to the left to follow it. You don't have to take his word for it, you can verify that yourself.

-The loss of target lock which occurred multiple times in the video, which the pilot denies but you can listen to the pilot's own criteria for loss of target lock and watch the video for yourself and confirm for yourself that the loss of target lock happens multiple times.

Now, maybe you lack the analytical skills to do any such analysis yourself. Plenty of other people seem to lack the skills, since so many people get it wrong, which Mick West points out at the end of the video, like David Fravor, the TTSA analysts and the scientists and engineers at SCU all get it wrong. Mick west is not right because he says so, but because he provides you with claims you can check out for yourself in the video and confirm them yourself, so it's your own analysis you should rely on, not his. But if you're not capable of doing the analysis then your expertise on the matter is limited anyway so if that's the case all you could do is say you don't know which "expert" to trust.

Personally, I don't trust any "expert" when it comes to UFOs, not even Mick West, if I can't personally verify his claims. But since I have personally verified what he says in that "no sudden moves" video he made, that the UFO makes no sudden moves, I can confirm he's right and Fravor, TTSA, and SCU (not to mention Corbell) are all wrong when they say the UFO accelerates to the left at the end. Any competent analysis would conclude that it very clearly does not do that, it's entirely an optical illusion which can be scientifically verified without any doubt at all. This is why we need photos and videos, which have some reliable value, rather than eyewitness accounts, which can be completely and utterly unreliable as this case clearly demonstrates.

Now if you want to debate any individual claim of the no sudden moves video on its own merits, as opposed to just discounting them because you don't believe Mick West, then feel free to do so in an appropriate thread, and we can talk about the facts in the video, instead of the people who may or may not be incorrectly analyzing the video.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur
Now, maybe you lack the analytical skills to do any such analysis yourself. Plenty of other people seem to lack the skills, since so many people get it wrong, which Mick West points out at the end of the video, like David Fravor, the TTSA analysts and the scientists and engineers at SCU all get it wrong. Mick west is not right because he says so, but because he provides you with claims you can check out for yourself in the video and confirm them yourself, so it's your own analysis you should rely on, not his. But if you're not capable of doing the analysis then your expertise on the matter is limited anyway so if that's the case all you could do is say you don't know which "expert" to trust.

Now if you want to debate any individual claim of the no sudden moves video on its own merits, as opposed to just discounting them because you don't believe Mick West, then feel free to do so in an appropriate thread, and we can talk about the facts in the video, instead of the people who may or may not be incorrectly analyzing the video.

Yea I guess I lack the analytical skills, then. Sounds like my problem. I definitely lack the desire to debate the Tic-Tac UFO in depth since it's not at all anything related to my original question. Also my problem, surely. I watched his little video where he debates an interview separate of the actual procedure of events and he still made some good points, I read his grasping diatribe over on metabunk on the same thing and he still made some good points, I gave it a good chance.

If they don't have a theory on how any of this stuff actually works I don't care. Imply I'm stupid, call me jaded, call me a fence sitter, it's cool I don't mind really. I think it's irrational to say within the game of likelihood that some british dude with an internet connection is going to tell a USN who was there and knows his aircraft systems what went down, but if you disagree that's fine. I honestly won't hold it against you and appreciate your input even if we don't lock up on everything 100%.

a reply to: Ophiuchus1

That's not how designations work. Good try though. The first part of the designation (C, KC, F, A, B, etc) is the mission of the aircraft. Cargo, tanker, fighter, attack, bomber and so on. The second part of the designation, the number is, normally, a logical progression starting from one. The reason we have the B-52, and then the B-1, is that after the B-52 was bought, the entire designation system was reset, and started over. We now have the B-21, because someone in the Pentagon was being cute and went with "21st Century" instead of the B-3, which it should have been. There hasn't been a TR designation since the brief period when the U-2 was designated the TR-1, and then changed back to the U-2S.

According to some of the claims I saw, the TR in TR-3B stood for Teledyne Ryan, who supposedly made it, which is utter BS. Teledyne Ryan became part of Northrop in 99, when Northrop bought them. Starting in 1968, just before they became part of Teledyne, Ryan only made unmanned systems, and only small ones. They were mostly used for target drones. Others claim it was built by Douglas, who couldn't even build the A-12 Avenger without it being cancelled and a decades long lawsuit being involved.

Until 2010, the military used the Tier system to designate UAVs.

Air Force Tiers:
Tier N/A: Small/micro UAVs (Wasp Block III)
Tier I: Low altitude, long endurance (Gnat 750)
Tier II: Medium Altitude, long endurance (MQ-1, MQ-9)
Tier II+: High altitude, long endurance (RQ-4)
Tier III-: High altitude, long endurance, low observable (RQ-3)

The Army and Marines used a similar system, but their Tier III was for low altitude systems (usually around a 15,000 foot ceiling). The TR-3B is almost certainly a misunderstanding of the Tier III UAV designation.