It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

October 1943 Schweinfurt Report

page: 2
21
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 4 2014 @ 01:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Kandinsky

Some reports say that the Foo Fighters were really Nazi discs called Haunebu:

www.bibliotecapleyades.net...
HAUNEBU SERIES OF NAZI DISCS
It apparently flew, but I'm unsure of the dimensions. The photos in this article make it hard to see how big - or small - it was, and some "trick perspective" shots make it look mountain-sized. However a shot of one by a pickup truck about halfway down, gives the impression it was only about 30 feet across. With a Nazi cross on its side, which the dog-fighting pilots would have clearly seen.

forum.worldofwarplanes.com.../topic/754-german-area-51/
WORLD OF WARPLANES: THE GERMAN AREA 51
I thought the first Haunebu looked like a tank-on-a-disc, and it apparently was: rotating turret, crew of 8, could hover for 8 minutes, fired a rail gun instead of beam weapons. They went thru 3 series, but then apparently dropped it. Probably to focus on their rocket program. (All discs were powered by Thule Triebwerk EMG engines.)

The 3-page forum discussion quickly morph's into a general discussion of Nazi secret airplane designs. But it DOES prove that they had an active program to develop better combat craft, and that they were experimenting with discs with some success. And von Braun had started working on putting rocket engines in airplanes, which was undoubtedly the first Stealth Project:

"During his work on the A-4 (v-2) rocket program, Werner von Braun was interested in applying rocket propulsion to aircraft. Beginning in 1936, he helped convert some conventional aircraft (mainly a donated He 112 from Heinkel) to operate on rocket power."

(I am struck, however, by how much the Haunebu resembles our own deep-black TR-3B. Such as the three balls/bulbs underneath, the EMG propulsion, etc. And it was well known during WWII, that when the Allies captured a working enemy plane - or one was flown to England to be surrendered - Allied pilots would actually fly them back over Europe and even Germany. Mainly for surveillance, since the Axis recognized the craft as "theirs" and wouldn't attack it. If the Allies had captured one of these Haunebu, who is to say it wasn't later retro-engineered to start another country's "stealth air/space-craft"?)




posted on Oct, 4 2014 @ 03:15 PM
link   
a reply to: weirdguy



True, for me this one is easy to explain


The idea that chaff might be the explanation for this report struck me as more likely than FLAK defences. Coils of aluminium foil would seem to be quite close in appearance to the ‘discs’ that were described.

To really drive the idea home as a definitive explanation we need more information about how chaff was used in 1943 and what it looked like. I’ve looked at available images and those that conform to the descriptions weren’t in operational use in 1943 – they came later.

During 1943, chaff (or ‘window’) wasn’t used extensively and debuted over Hamburg on the 24-25 Jul 1943. It was a fairly new technology and was deployed in bundles of short strips by the radio operator who was part of the rear crew. These bundles were about 2lb in weight and tied up by twine. They’d be untied and then dropped out through the rear chute. Due to the way they were compressed, as soon as they hit the air they expanded and could take a long time to descend to earth.

You can read a personal account by Harvin Abrahamson, Radio Operator, Army Air Corps, England, World War 2 in this oral history PDF.

There’s also a book, Operations Analysis in the U.S. Army Eighth Air Force in World War II by Charles W. McArthur (link) that describes its introduction:



Another, B-17 Flying Fortress Units of the MTO by William N Hess notes a similar time-line:


a reply to: MKMoniker



The only person who might have some insider information on this case, would be Nick Pope. A journalist who didn't believe in UFOs, he was hired by the UK Ministry of Defense to go thru their UFO files. He not only became a "UFO believer", but has had access to England's UFO files back thru WWII. If anyone knows the whole story, it's probably him.


Thanks for your help


In relation to documents like this, there are at least two people who'd know more about these documents and they'd be Dr David Clarke and Andy Roberts. Clarke is the man through whom the MoD chose to release their UFO-related files. Andy Roberts has collaborated with Clarke for many years.



posted on Oct, 4 2014 @ 03:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: weirdguy
I think aluminium foil strips were used for clouding radar back in the day. Perhaps these disks were something like that?




The Brits called it 'window', and was usually dropped over the north sea and into the European coastline.



posted on Oct, 4 2014 @ 04:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Kandinsky

Interesting case K, the first thing that came to mind was the Convair Pye Wacket program.



The Lenticular Defense Missile (LDM) program was initially designed for the single purpose of defending the XB-70 Valkyrie Mach 3 bombers against soviet air-defense weapons. So it is a bit coincidental that the 308th B-17 bomber group saw lenticular 3" discs hovering mid-flight in 1943.

The only problem though (besides the size difference) is the LDM program was first activated in 1958. There was some early research in 1947 at Wright-Patterson to investigate using missiles for bomber defense, as the speed of jets and the weight of the gun turrets made existing systems for bomber defense impractical.

So that is still a four year difference. The time gap makes it hard to believe the RAF / USAF had an operational prototype back in 1943.

What fascinates me though is why the USAF, four years later, was experimenting with such an unconventional design? I wouldn't be surprised if the LDM program was inspired by the reports of whatever the 308th saw.
edit on 2014-10-4 by Xtraeme because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 4 2014 @ 04:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Spader

I read all this decades ago long before the internet but do not recall reading about foo fighters passing through anything , from what i read they were physical in nature following the bombers and moving at high speed around the planes maybe something radio controlled ?






posted on Oct, 5 2014 @ 02:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Xtraeme

Hello there Ex


Oh dear, I think the UFO 'bug' might have returned as your post has led to the past hour rummaging through patents and docs about 'lenticular airframes' and 'lenticular cross-section.' The DITC have the Pye Wacket feasibility study (pdf) declassified. I've no doubt you've already read it? This is the artist's conception:





What fascinates me though is why the USAF, four years later, was experimenting with such an unconventional design? I wouldn't be surprised if the LDM program was inspired by the reports of whatever the 308th saw.


There are times and incidents where we see the suggestion of a reciprocating relationship between early UFO reports and the aerospace sectors. The early NICAP board was populated by military and Intel personnel and may have informed the design patterns of certain prototypes. Whether intentionally, or not, weren't they well-placed as gatekeepers eh? : )

The feasibility study seems incomplete, does it seem that way to you? The wind-tunnel tests were successful, but they seem to have been testing one-directional flight using one set of motors. They then used another set of motors to test its ability to travel in a different direction. I don't see where it was tested as the 'omni-directional' vehicle it was intended to be. It didn't get to the point of being shot from a sled.

The conclusions are interesting as they seem to be in favour of pursuing the design.

We're in danger of going OT and attracting the wrath of the OP! The B-17 report was sent out to British and American Air Intelligence departments so we'd expect to see a copy of this exact document in some US box-file. Wherever it ended up, it wasn't in the initial Grudge reports. It would have been good to confirm chaff.



posted on Oct, 5 2014 @ 03:40 AM
link   
I think Ghost Lanterns would of been a better name, I mean do they really fight foo's?



posted on Oct, 5 2014 @ 04:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Specimen

The items described in the report don't really fit the criteria for 'Foo Fighters' anyway.

Pilots and crew genuinely reported seeing bright and/or glowing spheres that paced their aircraft. Going off memory, a particular person was in charge of the 'Foo' reports in the early '40s and was there again for Projects Grudge and Blue Book. The early 'Foo' reports vanished so what little we know about the sightings are what are left in old newspapers and the oral/written histories of those war-time crews.

In the world of UFO researchers, there has often be the problem of hoovering up masses of data and then bunching it all together. This isn't always to make the case for genuine UFO phenomena, it's just as common to use the information as a barricade against 'skeptics' and 'nasty negativists.' This means that if something is airborne, it's suspected of being ET and put on the pile.

This case doesn't suggest intelligently-controlled flight whilst clearly describing an intelligently-designed shape - silver disc. It still didn't stop some researchers from blindly, or wilfully, calling the report a 'Foo Fighter.'

...and yes, 'ghost lanterns' is a better name than 'foo fighter' although they both sound like characters from the Marvel universe



posted on Oct, 6 2014 @ 07:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: weirdguy
a reply to: boncho

True, for me this one is easy to explain but there are many other reports and incidences that are not. The battle for LA photo for example.


Hi, I can't agree with that. The 'official' story of the so called 'battle for LA' doesn't satisfy a lot of people because in a nutshell it comes down to panic by the US military and so over the years a weird myth has grown up around it with details being added to build up the story. None of it actually matches to witness accounts at the time (the myth tries to make it seem no one was around to actually witness events, but that's clearly not true).



posted on Oct, 6 2014 @ 07:48 AM
link   



Coils of aluminium foil would seem to be quite close in appearance to the ‘discs’ that were described.



I can understand them being easily visible and taking a long time to reach the ground when deployed correctly but for them to resemble a sphere they would have to remain coiled, in which case wouldn't the weight have caused them to drop too quickly to be seen clearly ?



posted on Oct, 6 2014 @ 08:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: chunder



Coils of aluminium foil would seem to be quite close in appearance to the ‘discs’ that were described.



I can understand them being easily visible and taking a long time to reach the ground when deployed correctly but for them to resemble a sphere they would have to remain coiled, in which case wouldn't the weight have caused them to drop too quickly to be seen clearly ?


In the report it states that they were disks, 1 inch thick by 3 inches in diameter. It also says they were in very uniformed clusters.

But what bothers me here is, why doesn't the report mention Chaff? Didn't the experienced flight crew know about the newly developed Chaff on board their bomber? This is an after mission report so the flight crew would have had time to digest what had happened, I would assume that they would have dismissed the disks as Chaff if that is what is was. Would I be right thinking that, I dunno? I love a good mystery.


Maybe the Chaff was dropped by pathfinder aircraft or another flight of bombers slightly ahead? Surely there is a ww2 bomber formation expert on ATS.
edit on 6-10-2014 by weirdguy because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2014 @ 08:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: weirdguy
a reply to: boncho

True, for me this one is easy to explain but there are many other reports and incidences that are not. The battle for LA photo for example.


Hi, I can't agree with that. The 'official' story of the so called 'battle for LA' doesn't satisfy a lot of people because in a nutshell it comes down to panic by the US military and so over the years a weird myth has grown up around it with details being added to build up the story. None of it actually matches to witness accounts at the time (the myth tries to make it seem no one was around to actually witness events, but that's clearly not true).


oh please don't tell me that lol
I'm not listening la la la



posted on Oct, 6 2014 @ 08:18 AM
link   
These men were highly skilled, and trained individuals. They trained hard, and knew every plane in their theater of operations, from plane recognition testing during that training. The men who went to Schweinfurt had been in many previous bombing runs. They were seasoned, as Schweinfurt was a huge undertaking, and involved careful planning. It was a big deal.

So, if these men said they saw a cluster of silver disks. That's what they saw. I don't care if anyone thinks they mistook what they saw. They saw silver disks, end of story. And silver disks floating in the sky weren't made on Earth, in 1943.



posted on Oct, 6 2014 @ 08:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Kandinsky

oh, I get it now. So the rolls of Chaff came later on in the war and in this particular raid the Chaff would have been in the form of small strips. Interesting



posted on Oct, 6 2014 @ 08:56 AM
link   


The 384th flew Boeing B-17s; the legendary ‘Flying Fortresses’ that undertook heavy bombing raids across Europe. The Germans had a different name for them – ‘flying porcupines.’ Both names show respect for what was a heavily armoured aerial destroyer.

These beasts had a top speed of 295mph. It could drop some 17, 000lbs of bombs



The term Fliegendes Stachelschwein ("Flying Porcupine") was coined for the British Short Sunderland flying boat bomber, with its documented armament of up to 18 Browning machine-guns.

That's not to say that the Germans could not have also applied the term to any of the heavily armed bombers; but I've never seen any documented reference to it being applied to a B-17 outside of B-17 legend.

Also, the average B-17 bomb load was 4,500 lb. The heaviest recorded bomb load of a B-17 mission was 8,000 lb.

In comparison, the average bomb load of the British Lancaster Bomber was 14,000 lb and the heaviest recorded load was on the missions carrying the 22,000 lb "Grand Slam" earthquake bomb.
edit on 6-10-2014 by HotblackDesiato because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2014 @ 03:59 PM
link   
a reply to: HotblackDesiato

Thanks for your post.

The stats were there to flesh out the OP and add context. Of the sources I read before posting, there was very little consensus so I included figures that fell within the span of figures described by historians and veterans.

The ~17 000lbs figure originates in 'Boeing Planemaker to the World; Robert Redding & Bill Yenne, 1983.'

The key issue is the 'discs' described in the report. If you can find a definitive example of chaff being deployed in coiled discs in 1943 we can close the book on this old incident.



posted on Oct, 10 2014 @ 12:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Kandinsky

Yes, from the report in the OP the description sounds exactly like a chaff deployment, especially the 3-4 foot clusters of debris.

I believe the first recorded use of chaff by the Germans was over London about a week before this Schweinfurt raid. Perhaps it's possible that the objects in this incident were German chaff deployed as a countermeasure to B-17 radar?

Some enquiries to war museums/experts may need to be made to discern the exact format of chaff in use by the British, Americans and Germans for this date.

Although, t's somewhat peculiar that the person making the report seems to be oblivious to the concept of chaff; was it still a highly guarded "secret" at this point?
edit on 10-10-2014 by HotblackDesiato because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 10 2014 @ 01:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: weirdguy
True, for me this one is easy to explain but there are many other reports and incidences that are not. The battle for LA photo for example.

That one was more interesting before they found the original, un-retouched version of the photo in the archives a couple years ago. Much less saucer-like.



posted on Oct, 10 2014 @ 02:01 PM
link   
a reply to: HotblackDesiato



Yes, from the report in the OP the description sounds exactly like a chaff deployment, especially the 3-4 foot clusters of debris.


It does indeed, but the sources I posted later on suggest otherwise. If the report was from 1944-45, we'd be able to say 'explained' with confidence. It's apparently a case of 'right description, wrong time.'

The chain of circumstances that led to the transmission of the reports are interesting. Regarding 'chaff,' it's improbable that the crew of this flight were simultaneously mystified by something they would have carried on-board and used. Likewise, would they be bemused by German Flak bursts? They would presumably have noticed flak-bursts in the skies as soon as they entered air-space above Schweinfurt so I wonder what made the ones in their vicinity unusual to them? At the same time, I wonder how they were allowed to make a report without any other experienced AF staff pointing out that they saw flak or chaff?

I agree that contacting someone with expertise in the area will be helpful and might put the case to bed.



posted on Oct, 10 2014 @ 02:28 PM
link   
Not much to add but...

I did check out the book by RV Jones - " A Most Secret War" and the man seems to be very much a sceptic and had no time for the foo fighters and ghost rockets stories during his time in the intelligence services.

However conspiracy theorists would probably say that had he discovered anything of note then Reginald Victor Jones would have been the ideal man in Britain to cover up such a story with a mundane explanation.




top topics



 
21
<< 1   >>

log in

join