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.

 

Northrop and Horton-A link?

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 31 2005 @ 10:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
IIRC there were 2 configurations for the engine mounting in the Ho9; both presented a clear aspect from the front of the aircraft and were not 'buried' in any way.

I also came across this which might amuse some folks and annoy those who insist the Hortens had all the answers and were just (always "just") on the verge of fielding (yet another
) German war-winning design -


Rudolph Opitz, also a pilot, and one with experience in unconventional aircraft. "Any one of the old timers who flew Horten sailplanes ... knew that the Horten all-wing flying characeristics are horrible," he said.

"Anyone who came from the outside and flew the Horten all-wing aircraft found that the aircraft flew, but that was about all.
All these aircraft required considerable changes, but the Horten brothers would never listen."


I have also previously posted up the evaluation reports such as are available
www.twitt.org...

Quite why some people wish to keep the myth of nazi invincibility up (despite the heaviest and most comprehensive defeat anyone ever suffered ever) is beyond me.

The Horten aircraft were interesting concepts but that is all.
They were grossly underdeveloped and in need of several months (if not years) of flight development before the design was properly 'frozen', they needed several months (if not years) to train pilots in operations and tactics before they got anywhere near service deployment.

(and anyone who seriously thinks otherwise should take a look at Northrops years spent on his flying wings)

The days of cobbling together a lash-up plane and expecting it to perform (and it's crew to be able to make it perform) were long gone long before the Horten jet took to the air (oh, and crashed, killing it's pilot).



[edit on 31-5-2005 by sminkeypinkey]


What a bunch of crap! The British never even saw a Horton 9. How the hell would or could they know anything about its flight characteristics? That latter statement goes for the Americans also. All they know is what the Germans told them---END OF DISCUSSION on performance.

This source is also inaccurate, there were only three Horton 9s built, including the Gotha 229. My information is from a German employee of Horton, speaking to US intelligence, obtained via FOIA, and only recently available. The Horton 9 v-2 crashed on landing when an engine failed. Your test pilot is a name we all know and love but he didn't fly the Horton 9 or he would be dead. The Horton 9 v-2 was apparently still flying in March, 1945 when the interview was done and it had been tested not only for top speed but top speed loaded and unloaded. The Horton 9 had an internal bomb bay as do modern stealth aircraft and for the same reasons.

One problem all you guys are having with "Nazi high-tech" is that since the Wall fell, there has come into play a whole new set of researchers who have uncovered things the Allies flatly denied existed. Most of these sources are either in German language or in US govenment intelligence files which they will only release, FOIA or not, under duress. So, if you are not bombing the goverment with FOIA appeals and using what they have already produced against them or if you are not doing field work, interviewing people in Germany, visiting old sites, and digging through their archives, then you are relying on out of date information. There is nothing on the internet of any value, so forget that approach.




posted on May, 31 2005 @ 11:33 PM
link   
^^^^ Well if you possess these FOIA documents on the H-9 then why don't you scan them and post them ? Offer up some proof to support these claims. I for one would be interested.



posted on Jun, 1 2005 @ 05:59 AM
link   
So your response when faced with a detailed report from the RAE from October 1945 is this;


What a bunch of crap! The British never even saw a Horton 9. How the hell would or could they know anything about its flight characteristics? That latter statement goes for the Americans also. All they know is what the Germans told them---END OF DISCUSSION on performance.


What would they know about it? Evidently a damn sight more than you.



posted on Jun, 1 2005 @ 06:59 AM
link   
IMO the Nazi's are solely responsible for every piece technology in all walks of life.


EDIT
Graphic removed upon waynos's request.

But here is a link to it if anyone wants to see it.

Link (viewer discretion is advised)

waynos, i did'nt mean any offence whatsoever, but what about the animated gif did you find provocative



[edit on 1-6-2005 by Stealth Spy]



posted on Jun, 1 2005 @ 07:15 AM
link   
stealth Spy, not only is that view simplistic and wrong (even though you are entitled to it) but that graphic is also HUGELY offensive and I would appreciate it very much if you copuld edit your post and remove it. Thank you.

Post edited because I was SO offended by the graphic I overreacted a little.



[edit on 1-6-2005 by waynos]



posted on Jun, 1 2005 @ 08:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Forschung
The British never even saw a Horton 9. How the hell would or could they know anything about its flight characteristics? That latter statement goes for the Americans also. All they know is what the Germans told them---END OF DISCUSSION on performance.


- They interviewed the designers and manufacturers, found the official reports, interviewed the surviving test pilots and took what material was left.
That seems pretty conclusive to me.

ROYAL AIRCRAFT ESTABLISHMENT, FARNBOROUGH
The Horten Tailless Aircraft
By
K.G. Wilkinson, B.Sc., D.I.C.
SUMMARY

In March this year a C.I.O.S. team visited the original home of Horten Aircraft in Bonn, and brought back information on the recent activities of the brothers Horten which revealed that their development of the flying wing type had reached an advanced stage. Several powered types of great interest had been built and flown, and a six-engined flying model of a transport plane half completed.

Later on the Hortens were interrogated in England and a party form R.A.E. followed this up by visiting the Horten factories and flight test center in Germany in an attempt to find and preserve some of the more useful aircraft. The trip was disappointing in that all the power aircraft except the half completed H VIII were found to be destroyed. One glider was, however, brought back.

Finally, in September, a party was sponsored by the Tailless Advisory Committee to visit Germany for further discussion with the Hortens and others interested in tailless problems. The following note is the result of a collation of all the interrogation reports on the Hortens and is an attempt to present a consistent and fairly complete account of their work.

www.twitt.org..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow"> www.twitt.org...




This source is also inaccurate, there were only three Horton 9s built, including the Gotha 229.


- That is not quite true, there was 1 glider version made, the V1.
The V2, the 2nd prototype, flew and kiled Ziller and the remaining 4 prototypes were at various stages of construction at the wars end.


My information is from a German employee of Horton, speaking to US intelligence, obtained via FOIA, and only recently available.


- So, one single source, as opposed to the official German reports and the all the other data, hmmm?

.....and what does "employee" mean, senior staff, junior staff, technical staff or semi-skilled etc etc?


The Horton 9 v-2 crashed on landing when an engine failed.


- Yes, this is well known.


Your test pilot is a name we all know and love but he didn't fly the Horton 9 or he would be dead.


- Scheidhauer was a contempory of Opitz and also worked on the Me 163. It is very likely (although at this stage I cannot prove) that they knew each other, undoubtedly they knew of each other.


The Horton 9 v-2 was apparently still flying in March, 1945 when the interview was done and it had been tested not only for top speed but top speed loaded and unloaded.


- You'll be able to support those claims, I take it?
I found this -

Consequently, the third test flight in the Horten H IX did not take place until February 18, 1945. Returning after about 45 minutes in the air, Ziller was seen to dive the aircraft and pull up several times at an altitude of about 800 meters, apparently in an effort to relight an engine. The undercarriage was lowered unusually early, at an altitude of about 400 meters. The V2’s speed decreased and, accompanied by increasing engine noise, its nose dropped and the aircraft entered a right-hand turn.

The H IX completed a 360 degree turn with its wings banked 20 degrees. It then accelerated and completed a second and third 360 degree turn, the angle of bank increasing all the while. As it began a fourth circle, the aircraft struck the frozen turf beyond the airfield boundary.

www.century-of-flight.freeola.com...

and this


As they developed the ‘229, the Horten brothers measured the wing's performance against the Messerschmitt Me 262 jet fighter.

and

According to an eyewitness, Ziller made three passes at an altitude of about 2,000 m (6,560 ft) so that a team from the Rechlin test center could measure his speed using a theodolite measuring instrument.

and

The crash must have disappointed Reimar as well. Ziller's test flights seemed to indicate the potential for great speed, perhaps a maximum of 977 km/h (606 mph). Although never confirmed, such performance would have helped to answer the Luftwaffe technical experts who criticized the all-wing configuration.

www.nasm.si.edu...

The best I have seen are subjective comments such as -

Before the crash a demonstration had been given against an Me 262; Horten said the H IX proved faster and more maneuverable, with a steeper and faster climb.

www.twitt.org...

Which is strange to say the least because the Ho9 had a higher weight (although a lower wing loading) than the Me 262 on the same power.


The Horton 9 had an internal bomb bay as do modern stealth aircraft and for the same reasons.


- Maybe, or alternately it could have been just to keep the airframe 'clean'.


One problem all you guys are having with "Nazi high-tech" is that since the Wall fell, there has come into play a whole new set of researchers who have uncovered things the Allies flatly denied existed.


- This is simply not so.
It has obviously escaped your notice that the Horten aircraft (those that actually existed were taken to the USA for examination.

If you would care to name a couple of examples of these "things the Allies flatly denied existed" I'd be interested.

The 'problem' many have with some of this 'new history' that has appeared since the wall fell is that a lot of it is very much like the 'Hitler Diaries'; interesting exaggeration or outright forgery for the gullible desparate to believe nazi-fans in the west.


Most of these sources are either in German language or in US govenment intelligence files which they will only release, FOIA or not, under duress. So, if you are not bombing the goverment with FOIA appeals and using what they have already produced against them or if you are not doing field work, interviewing people in Germany, visiting old sites, and digging through their archives, then you are relying on out of date information.


- If you wish to believe that there is a ton of nazi technological secrets out there waiting to be found, feel free.

I would be willing to accept there may well still be political 'secrets' we have yet to find out about but really, it's over 60yrs ago now and heading further and further away from us.

I doubt there are too many surprises left.


There is nothing on the internet of any value, so forget that approach.


- Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight, so the world's greatest library (dispite all the nonsense out there on it too) has nothing of value to say.

Ok, end of discussion I guess then.


By the way for those interested in this check this out -
www.amtjets.com...
The wing flies again.



posted on Jun, 1 2005 @ 10:52 AM
link   
The British would not have been able to interview anything!
the Americans had overrun the factory with the Horten aircraft.
( the V-1 was destroyed in a clearing action) The US took whatever pieces and aircraft they could find SECRETLY back to America. I think they then tested the aircraft back in America. How could the British have interviewed the brothers? One went back to Argentina and the workers didnt know that much about the aircraft.

You always argue the Horten 229 had horrible flying characteristics right? well in your last statement you just said it was compared to the ME 262 and it had incredible characteristics.

And to the test flight of the Horten 9. No one is sure when the flight took place exactly. Zillers personal diary has a different date than the date that the Horten brothers said the aircraft flew.

And about some still hidden secrets after the wall came up... "History is far to broad and complex for one single interepretation to be 100 percent correct" this is what my history teacher told me to put on my topic sentecne for essays. History always has stuff being rediscovered. Information is also coming out that the Russians buried Hitler in an unmarked grave and then 30 years later burned him and threw him into the Rhine river! All sorts of KGB documentation is coming out and its revealing many startling things we havent seen before. Also if all of this information has already been disvoered and doesnt mean anyhting, then how come there is complex that has probably millions of documents that are still classified about ww2???

OK and about the internet- it is very UNRELIABLE! unless you could obtain a link to NASM (which you did) the site that you go to can just make up stuff!



posted on Jun, 1 2005 @ 11:13 AM
link   



posted on Jun, 1 2005 @ 11:25 AM
link   









The majority of the Ho-229's skin was a carbon-inpregnated plywood, which would absorb the radar waves. This, along with it's shape, would've made the Ho-229 invisible to the crude radar of the day. So it should be credit as the first true "Stealth Fighter". The "Operation Paperclip" was an effort by the U.S. Army in the last weeks of the war to capture as much advanced German weapons research as possible, and to also deny the research to advancing Russian troops. A Horton glider and the Ho-229 number V2 were secured and sent to Northrop Aviation in the United States for evaluation. Later, the Northrop Aviation company developed the B-2 "Spirit" stealth bomber.


excellent links : www.answers.com...


This is a must see : www.luft46.com...










[edit on 1-6-2005 by Stealth Spy]



posted on Jun, 1 2005 @ 11:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by horten229v3
The British would not have been able to interview anything!
the Americans had overrun the factory with the Horten aircraft.
( the V-1 was destroyed in a clearing action) The US took whatever pieces and aircraft they could find SECRETLY back to America. I think they then tested the aircraft back in America.


- The story is that those parts went via Britain, apparantly. Some stuff did you know.


How could the British have interviewed the brothers? One went back to Argentina and the workers didnt know that much about the aircraft.


- The brother did not instantly flee to Argentina......why on earth would a contempory report from the RAE lie?
Particularly when the report is so clearly full of detail technical data which could only have come from talking to those concerned and analysing the data?


You always argue the Horten 229 had horrible flying characteristics right?


- Er, no actually. This is quite wrong.

I am saying that the thing barely flew, that it obviously had problems and that any meaningful assessment of it's capabilities - if any such disciplined testing ever occurred in the mess that was spring 1945 Germany - has been long lost to history forever.

I am saying that those who hold this prototype experimental aircraft up as some sort of 'almost like a B2' wonder-weapon are exaggerating to the point of absurdity.

40-50hrs flying as a glider along with around 10hrs powered flight is no basis for making extravagant claims IMO.
Show me the test program for any serious project that was so laughably short or the pilots and engineers who would make sweeping claims on the basis of so little data, hmmm?

Such claims must be treated as unfounded; that much should be obvious to all.......and I though we were into denying ignorance here?


well in your last statement you just said it was compared to the ME 262 and it had incredible characteristics.


- The Hortens said that actually, not necessarily the most reliable source particularly when others say differently.


And to the test flight of the Horten 9. No one is sure when the flight took place exactly. Zillers personal diary has a different date than the date that the Horten brothers said the aircraft flew.


- Like I said, in the defeated catastrophic mess that was early 1945 Germany I have no doubt records are hazy to say the least.
This is partly why those who attempt to make outlandish claims for this plane cannot be speaking from fact.


And about some still hidden secrets after the wall came up... "History is far to broad and complex for one single interepretation to be 100 percent correct" this is what my history teacher told me to put on my topic sentecne for essays. History always has stuff being rediscovered.


- That's a fair point.

I stand to be corrected at any time but as far as this discussion goes the Americans have the remains; the British have the reports and interviews.

There isn't a lot left to say.

The planes would (like almost all the experimantal German stuff of the time) have excited interest and yet they were not obviously developed from, I don't have to prove anything beyong that.

Those who wish to make outrageous claims beyond the known facts, do.


Information is also coming out that the Russians buried Hitler in an unmarked grave and then 30 years later burned him and threw him into the Rhine river!


- That is very old news, the unit that discovered him carted him about burying him in the various places where they were stationed, afraid to make their grizzly 'cargo' known (seeing as the matter had all supposedly been signed off and dealt with and the totalitarian Stalin was known to not be well disposed to being lied to).
Eventually his remains were effectively powered and scattered in the river and to the winds in the 1970's I believe.
(......er, and surely it would most likely have been the Elbe or Oder....... the Rhine was in the western sector?).


All sorts of KGB documentation is coming out and its revealing many startling things we havent seen before.


- If you say so, personally speaking I'd say it is now quite some time since I heard anything new (that is anything with documented credible sources; sketches on the back of a cigarette packet don't count).

The large amount of Munich gestapo records that were found a little while back was of interest but only in the sense that it showed how mundane, banal and self-operated the whole process of public surveilance and repression was.

(much as the stasi records showed later too)


Also if all of this information has already been disvoered and doesnt mean anyhting, then how come there is complex that has probably millions of documents that are still classified about ww2???


- I have absolutely no doubt there are indeed litterally millions of classified documents in vaults in all the participating countries of WW2.
I also have absolutely no doubt that a huge part of that archive is as mundane and 'ordinary' as it gets.
Much of it remains classified only because it has not been 'gone through' and some may cause embarrassment to those concerned still alive or their families.

They are not crammed full of 'secret knowledge' they (
) are keeping from us either, it is simply a matter that there is very limited manpower to expend on these things.

I'd bet serious money all if not almost all the 'big techy stuff' was released long ago (my proviso on some of the records would only relate to some of the political intrigues played) .


OK and about the internet- it is very UNRELIABLE! unless you could obtain a link to NASM (which you did) the site that you go to can just make up stuff!


- I think we all know the net is unreliable, that is why I personally often remark on single sources and the quality of the source.

(it's also why I find questioning the contemporaneous RAE documents as worthless and likely to be either falsified or plain wrong strange to say the least!)



posted on Jun, 1 2005 @ 02:02 PM
link   
A number of German aircraft projects were followed up directly with British and US developed experimental types that were directly based upon a previous German design.

The X-4 and X-5 were obvious American ones but also the DH 108 in Britain. The Chance Vought Cutlass naval fighter was developed from an Arado design and the Handley Page Victor V bomber looks suspiciously like a Heinkel design of 1945. The wing of the MiG 15 was based upon that of the Focke Wulf Ta 183 while the wing of the F-86 was based on captured Messerschmitt research. The Martin XB-51 had its roots in a german design while the closest rip off of German tech to appear in operational form was the SAAB J-35 Lansen which was basically a slightly warmed over Messerschmitt P.1110. There were many many more examples which are all easy to find and yet not one single plane was based on the Horten/ Gotha 229. You must ask yourself why this should be, if it was really any good.



posted on Jun, 1 2005 @ 04:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Forschung
Shattered Skys, Your last post passes for English? Well gee, if you discuss a German aircraft in detail, especially a limited series of three prototypes, it seems only reasonable that German sources would arise. I checked the web (although it is not my source of information) and came up with a link for you. Maybe you can argue with these guys. They do say Skunk Works, whatever that means:

www.netwrx1.com..../skunk-works/v05.n612

So you don't know what Skunk Works is, wow this conversation is so over, maybe you're the one that doesn't belong in this forum, and reading the first couple of sentences in that post that were actual information, it is clear to me that you do not understand what they are saying.

Shattered OUT...



posted on Jun, 1 2005 @ 08:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stealth Spy
I hope these pics are not offensive :



- You see, a clear look down the jet intakes from the front, nothing like the buried and shielded intakes as seen on the B2.

The 'stealth features' are undeniable , as is the deliberate intention to build in a degree of stealth but look at all those 90' angles, the unshielded cockpit and the biggest radar reflector of them all the clear shot down the intakes at the compressor blades.

Ok so radar was not as advanced as now (obviously) but if allied radar was good enough to 'see' a U-boat periscope in open water I'm willing to bet it could pick up one of these albeit at a reduced range.

Pity there is no data on the effectiveness of the RAM type coating they wanted to use.

There is little information about the RAM matting the U-boats used on their schnorkel and periscope equipment either, possibly all this was down-played deliberately as the matter was investigated by western scientists.

Certainly the U-boats would have provided lots of examples and samples when they surrendered to the allies so it would hardly have been a secret or surprise to anyone.

[edit on 1-6-2005 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Jun, 2 2005 @ 03:31 AM
link   
I'd just like to add a note regarding the Gotha P.60 shown above, the flat delta with jet engines mounted at the dorsal and ventral position.

You can see from the illustration that it was of such llow frontal area that the pilot couldn't be seated in the normal way but had to lay face doen in the 'prone' position.

After the war the RAE followed this idea through to the testing stage to see if it had any merit. First a Ried & Sigrist Desford and then a Gloster Meteor were modified with prone pilot accomodation for flight tests and the verdict was theat the concept was hopeless. In fact when questioned about the Meteor the test pilot, Arnold Franklin who was usually employed as Chief Test Pilot for Armstrong Whitworth, commented "We knew the scheme was no bloody good when we flew the Desford so Lord knows why persisted with the Meteor". As a result the Meteor was never piloted solo from the front cockpit and the Bristol 178 fighter thie tech was intended for was abandoned.



So the P.60 was another interesting idea that suffered a fatal flaw.



posted on Jun, 2 2005 @ 06:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
The Chance Vought Cutlass naval fighter was developed from an Arado design


- IIRC this was more about Lippisch going to the US to work for the US aerospace Co.s, no?


and the Handley Page Victor V bomber looks suspiciously like a Heinkel design of 1945.


- But surely in fairness it should be mentioned that HP always strenuously denied any such 'connection'.


The Martin XB-51 had its roots in a german design while the closest rip off of German tech to appear in operational form


- But this was hardly a roaring success either, was it?

The Me 262 and Arado Ar 234 were undoubtedly of enormous potential for their time.

As for the rest?
I think they undoubtedly had some interesting ideas (but invariably only initial ideas and concepts) everyine else did all the hard work examining, exploring and developed these ideas into something tangible, usable or ditched them as dead ends.

Russia now provides some interesting data on this especially on the late Junkers stuff; the FSW stuff was continued there and dropped, some of the bombers sketched before the wars end appeared as 'Alekseyev Type 150' and - modified as a passagerliner in Eartern Germany in the 1950's - the VEB Type 152.
All proved either very ordinary and by the time they appeared pretty out of date (the Type 150) or totally unsuited (the Type 152).

Similarly the rocket planes, interesting dead ends.

Nothing more.



posted on Jun, 2 2005 @ 09:12 AM
link   
Sminkey, while Lippisch and his expertise were claerly inducted into the whole development programme the basic starting point for what became the Cutlass was this Arado design;



It is also true that HP denied any German influence in the design of the Victor, but there is nonetheless a similarity, which might be nothing more than that. In any case the design in question was an extremely preliminary sketch entitled simply '4 engined Bomber' which is why I only commented on the likeness.

Again you are right that the XB-51 was a failure, which led to the USA buying the Canberra, which only goes to show how these advanced schemes weren't necssarily as good as people like to think.



posted on Jun, 2 2005 @ 03:29 PM
link   
Rogue1: Yes, I have the report but no I don't have a scanner but you just might see the report if it is published.

And since you, Rougue1, have admitted owing "The Reich of the Black Sun Nazi Secret Weapons & The Cold War Allied Legend" Please refer to that writers discussion on "the Allied Legend" which is an attempt to retain information of more exotic German aircraft or spin a tale of minimumization about them. This is exactly what happened. This whole conversation is about that tactic--with the old, reactionary and uninformed rear guard still spinning the old story for Uncle Sam.

Others: What weak arguments!! Repeating my words and then writing a comment as it that is a response! It is not any sort of response.

Others: If you want documents on the Horton 9 or other Horton projects from the US goverment, there are tons of them. They analyzed these planes and wrote many reports: see Combined Intelligence Objectives Sub-Committee Reports list available throught the US National Archives. By the way UFO researcher William Moore republished two of these reports and sold them commercially. They may still be available, I don't know.

What does it matter what a friend of a friend of a test pilot said about flying a Me262 in regard to the Horton 9?

Shattered Skys: That internet reference was for you. I don't used internet references to build an arguement since they can be inaccurated. If you know that these people are the real deal--the real Skunk Works--fine. And it only bolsters my arguement more. If not--I am not responsible. As I said before, go argue with them about he connection they made.

Others: if you don't want to admit the link between the Horton 9 and the B-2, inspite of the similarities in design and purpose as well as the visit by the Northrop engineers, what does that say about you? Are you just ethnocentric or ethnocentric and in denial?

If you think that revolations about the Horton 9 are over the top, you guys have some real surprises in store. The Horton 9 is nothing.

Someone said derisively that he didn't think the Germans had anything to do with our modern technological world and shouldn't be credited for almost everything in our high-tech culture. OK, I take the opposite veiw. What technology didn't the Germans invent or greatly further develope during the Reich times? Just name one.

[edit on 2-6-2005 by Forschung]



posted on Jun, 2 2005 @ 03:38 PM
link   
If that is the best response you can come up with after all of that so far all I can say is troll alert!

(Registered 22/05/05.
)

.....and by the way -

Repeating my words and then writing a comment as it that is a response! It is not any sort of response.


- It is standard practice on a message board to address each point made. In most cases it's just polite to respond to exactly what is being said......in others it is a method to totally take apart a ridiculous 'arguement'.



[edit on 2-6-2005 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Jun, 2 2005 @ 03:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
If that is the best response you can come up with after all of that so far all I can say is troll alert!

(Registered 22/05/05.
)

.....and by the way -

Repeating my words and then writing a comment as it that is a response! It is not any sort of response.


- It is standard practice on a message board to address each point made. In most cases it's just polite to respond to exactly what is being said......in others it is a method to totally take apart a ridiculous 'arguement'.



[edit on 2-6-2005 by sminkeypinkey]


1. You have come up with nothing at all.

2. What would you like me to respond to? If what I have said is so ridiculous, cite a source otherwise, stop wasting band-width. You have lost.



posted on Jun, 2 2005 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Forschung
1. You have come up with nothing at all.

2. What would you like me to respond to? If what I have said is so ridiculous, cite a source otherwise, stop wasting band-width. You have lost.


- You entire arguement has revolved around merely say 'I don't believe your sources' to everyone and claims to have your own which you cannot or will not reproduce.

Wow; outstanding 'debate' matey, not.

If you think that has 'won' (Jayzuss wept
do you really 'think' like that?) the debate, rock on buster, knock yourself out in your 'glory'.




new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join