TR-3B Flying Triangle UFO Patented?

UFO websites and various “researches” are very excited about a US patent 20060145019 A1 “Triangular spacecraft“. They all seem to think that TR-3B Flying Triangle patent is now in the public domain.

Patent drawing. Source: Google

The facts don’t support these claims:

  • There is no evidence that TR-3B aka TR-3 Black Manta – an alleged secret surveillance aircraft of the U.S. Air Force – exists
  • In USA, the patented things do not have to work or even exist
  • There are lots of patented flying spacecraft so this is nothing new

We can also look at some of the other patents of this inventor as a reference:

  • Remote viewing amplifier – “An apparatus which enhances the ability of a person to perform remote viewing by connecting the human spiritual eye to the tetrahedral geometry of subspace.”
  • Full body teleportation system – the background of the invention explains that the inventor personally experienced a full-body teleportation while walking to the bus stop

Have you seen people using this remote viewing amplifier? How about people teleporting around? Clearly these patented things do not work or exist.

Evidence of triangular UFOs

Many triangular shaped UFO stories are inspired the Belgian UFO wave which began in November 1989. Below is the famous photographic evidence of the Belgian UFO:

The problem with this photo: it is a fake. It turned out to be a panel of painted styrofoam with three embedded flashlights. It is interesting that the only photographic evidence of the Belgian UFO wave was a hoax.

UFO researchers and believers often talk about the Phoenix Lights from 1997 as concrete evidence of triangular shaped UFOs (or TR-3Bs). Some call it the number one UFO sighting of all time. What people actually witnessed? A group of military aircraft and flares. However, this story just won’t go away even when it has been explained many times.

Summary

  • The TR-3B most likely doesn’t exist
  • The patented spacecraft that resembles a triangular shaped UFO most likely doesn’t work
  • There is no scientifically valid evidence that UFOs or aliens are visiting the earth

12 thoughts on “TR-3B Flying Triangle UFO Patented?”

Add yours

  1. Enjoying your site. Where is the evidence and what is your source on this statement?

    “The problem with this photo: it is a fake. It turned out to be a panel of painted styrofoam with three embedded flashlights.”

    Did you look at the actual eyewitness statements in reaching your conclusion about the Phoenix Lights?

    Thanks,

    Xeno

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. Hey Xeno, many thanks for your comments and questions!

      About the Belgian “TR3B”. Prior to this confession (RTL Belgium. 2011) http://www.rtl.be/info/belgique/faits-divers/le-mystere-du-celebre-ovni-des-annees-90-elucide-une-supercherie–240323.aspx there was already a lot of research done suggesting the sighting was a hoax. E.g. Roger Pacquay’s photo analysis was good. None of this will have impact on true believers, though.

      About the Phoenix Lights. I have seen some documentaries including eyewitness statements concerning the 1997 event. I agree with Tony Ortega’s views on eSkeptic (linked in the post). He is not the only scientist who has come to similar conclusions.

      Eyewitness statements are often unreliable. Many of us are actually bad eyewitnesses. Crime-related article: https://www.livescience.com/16194-crime-eyewitnesses-mistakes.html

      “Eyewitness testimony is, at best, evidence of what the witness believes to have occurred. It may or may not tell what actually happened.” – Leo Levin and Harold Kramer, Trial Advocacy Problems and Materials (Mineola, N.Y.: Foundation Press, 1968)

      In many cases UFO eyewitnesses have been interviewed by ufologists. The interviewer might not be trained to interview eyewitnesses and victims. In these cases the eyewitness statements should be basically dismissed.

      See also: “Emotions and Confirmation Bias in Ufology” http://aerial-phenomenon.org/emotions-and-confirmation-bias-in-ufology/

      Like

      Reply

      1. I’m neither a true believer nor a true disbeliever. The evidence wins.

        So for the Petit-Rechain “TR3B” photo there’s a guy known only as Patrick who confessed that he made a model.

        http://m.rtl.be/info/240323

        Is there some compelling detail in the anonymous confession? I’ll check out what Patrick said, as well as Pacquay’s analysis, thanks much.

        For the Phoenix lights, I read over a hundred witness statements, and the “people are just confused” view just doesn’t do it for me. Too many reliable people over a huge area reported that they saw the same things, multiple huge silent dark shapes with lights. A group of people sitting around a table outside, for example, will not, in my view, due to emotions and confirmation bias, mistake flares, helicopters or jets in the distance for a huge dark shape that floats directly overhead blotting out the stars. Nor is the military in the habit of firing what would seem to have to be some exotic kind of extremely long lasting smokeless flares over the airspace of multiple civilian airports.

        I still don’t know what they were.

        Do you think it is true that 700 witnesses were interviewed by a city council woman who was not a ufologist?

        Nice to meet you and I will enjoy checking out more of your work.

        Liked by 1 person

  2. Responding to comments about the Phoenix lights:

    Q: “Do you think it is true that 700 witnesses were interviewed by a city council woman”

    It is not clear if the so called Town Hall meeting (possibly involving the Discovery Channel) actually took place. Wikipedians did leave the chapter about the meeting after a debate, but they could not identify any source. So I don’t know.

    C: “Too many reliable people over a huge area reported that they saw the same things…”

    It is true that many people saw the same thing – most of them saw the second event. It is not surprising that there are many witness accounts describing the similar event. It is the most widely witnessed “UFO” event. Some of the witness statements contradicted the photographic and video evidence, though.

    Military did drop the LUU-2B/B flares that night e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TD6MYZcucQA – each lasted about 4-5 minutes. Here is yet another summary, but a very good one: http://www.astronomyufo.com/UFO/SUNlite2_3.pdf (PDF, page 5)

    C: “Nor is the military in the habit of firing…extremely long lasting smokeless flares..”

    Military does use a lot of different kind of flares, often mistaken for UFOs. The ones in Phoenix lasted about 4-5 mins each. That is consistent with the evidence. More recent examples:
    1) http://www.mlive.com/news/us-world/index.ssf/2017/05/military_flares_over_lake_onta.html
    2) http://milwaukeerecord.com/city-life/watch-some-videos-of-ufos-a-k-a-the-u-s-army-golden-knights-flying-over-milwaukee/

    Because the amount of photographic and video material and the witness statements, Phoenix Lights was very well documented. This is why the “debunk” was also very thorough and leaves no open questions – at least for me. Last but not least, Brian Dunning’s “The Alien Invasion of Phoenix, Arizona”: https://skeptoid.com/episodes/4041

    Like

    Reply

  3. Jannefi You are one ignorant fool. I was IN PHOENIX ARIZONA, when these ” lights ” or Government craft . The entire CITY saw them. These WERE NOT FLARES. It was a SOLID OBJECT Slowly hovering over the sky, bigger than the Bank One Building. No Military aircraft nor any plane was flying over in the same area, this object was also slowly moving. It was a Solid Object. I dont know what game you’re playing or what you’re getting out of this, but you don’t have a damned clue what you’re talking about. You trying to to dictate what we all saw and didnt see, is laughable.

    Like

    Reply

Leave a reply to jannefi Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Create a website or blog at WordPress.com

Up ↑