Talk:TR-3A Black Manta
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It may reference highly speculative information unacknowledged by the government and defense contractors. Please maintain this article to conform with Wikipedia's standards for verifiability, notability, and future events. |
[edit] RqImg
Does anyone have the covers for the listed magazines, or some other pictures of the Black Manta? There are photos posted on internet forums that appear to have lights at the three apex corners. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLMuyJcFyIk That link to youtube is a summary of photos. Teslafieldmachine 21:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)A sample photo post: http://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g113/monty4444/100_0224C.jpg ^ is now online, must zoom in to see what 000_0224.jpg from same group, as posted on forum link: http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=228708 The Black Manta name tag must be from night phots of same craft. Best photo two dim circles and one bright circle of the triangle craft. Hope its usefull. Teslafieldmachine 00:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)A daytime photo of apparently three triangle craft in one,39 photos linked to this page:http://airlinemusic.mysite.com/cyraxzztesla/index.html light discs are circular lightning currents do to ac radial magnetic field,look in an MS physics book: Boas page 326, see Bessel vibrations page 650 for observed light effects in single dics ufo sightings of halo effect and black and white bottom. Radial line y = mx, circle is tangent line slope is -x/y. Teslafieldmachine 04:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)Inappropriate of myself to post on the added request to delete the page for photographic evidence. Since they did not do as requested by the page, I request their post to be deleted.Teslafieldmachine 05:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)The original triangle or set of three lights in the sky photos can be found here http://airlinemusic.mysite.com/triangle/index.htmlTeslafieldmachine 15:45, 22 November 2006 (UTC)http://airlinemusic.mysite.com/unhappytrails/index.html Just dark objects in the sky, Black Manta or not I suppose.Teslafieldmachine 03:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Manta Photo
Keith Saint's photo looks exactly like the sketch of an UCAV (unmanned aerial vehicle; used for reconnaisance) presented in the UAP-Report of the British MoD (Section 9, Figure 8, p. 93). The sketch presented there comes from Janes, a journal focused on military subjects and describes an UAV whith a highly stealthy design. Frankly spoken: It could also be nearly anything else including a fake. But in any case: it shares absolutely no similarities to the socalled TR-3 Manta, as this allegedly looked very much like a mixture between the F-117 and the B-2 141.2.22.211 15:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
What I wanted to suggest is this: The section about Saint's "Manta-photo" should be deleted. It's no serious eveidence. 141.2.22.211 16:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC) It does not seem to be a regular aircraft but something is up in the air with lights on the bottom, and the Air Force is in charge of the air or part of it. It might best be labeled a ufo, but does that drop the subject. You and the other contra photo poster may not have the investigation at heart by requesting elimination of any photo observations.Teslafieldmachine 04:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Requested Manta Photo
Actually, there exists no photo of the TR3-Manta. The photos which are proposed by the sites which are cited by teslafieldmachine are no conclusive evidence. It's up to everyone's personal belief whether they are showing a Black Manta or just some lights in the sky. All one could add is a sketch drawn by Adrian Mann and based on the rumours about what TR-3 should look like (http://www.thespacereview.com/article/576/2). But that would raise copyright problems. Bytheway, the same source (http://www.thespacereview.com/article/576/2) comes to the conclusion, that the TR-3 never existed and that the rumors about its existence were just based on misinterpretation. 141.2.22.211 15:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC) Lights and photos are an observation, its up to the physicist to explain physical phenomina and it is not a question of belief, its hard unexplained evidence if you wish. A small physics and math background explains what we see and its not a belief.Teslafieldmachine 04:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)