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: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 2 2005 @ 04:35 PM
link   
What does this have to do with anything about the link between Horton and Northrop?

Anyways, I agree with the fact that Northrop at the time of the development of the B-2, did not in fact go and look at Horton designs and decide "hey, these guys have a good idea".

In my opinion, the B-2's design came out of computer analysis and the shape is something that was designed using advanced calculations, these were done so that the B-2 fit the role it was being built to fill.

Shattered OUT...




posted on Jun, 2 2005 @ 04:45 PM
link   
Forschung,
So tell me, how was the inherent lateral instability of the Horten 9 (and every other pure flying wing) going to be overcome several decades before FBW ? Bearing in mind that the collective brains at Northrop, Armstrong Whitworth, Handley Page Avro and Vickers all ended conceding defeat in the matter by the early 1950's after several years studying Hortens results. Indeed Northrop and Armstrong Whitworth both ended up fitting vertical fins to the YB 49 and AW 52 in an attempt to address the issue, as did Avro with the aforementioned Avro 698 (later becoming the Vulcan).

[edit on 2-6-2005 by waynos]



posted on Jun, 2 2005 @ 09:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
Forschung, re your claim about Mutke (Sp?) being the first man to survive exceeding M=1.0. I say again, not in an Me 262 he didn't. the planes DESIGNER knew it was not capable of more than M=0.86 and post war research at Farnborough PROVED it. I dare say that the effect of diving the 262 at or near to this limit would have been very much like what we know know the 'sound barrier' to have felt like but he was approaching the limit of the airframe not the speed of sound, this has been scientifically proven while Mutke merely 'believes' he went supersonic, do you see the difference?.

Now moving onto the flying wing debate. Northrop was working on flying wings before the war and before anyhting was know about the Hortens work. It has happened quite a few times that entirely independant research has come up with the same solutions to a problem (the design of the Bell X-1 and Miles M.52 is a case in point). If Northrop did have contact with the Hortens it would have been by way of 'mutual interest' rather than gaining tech.

Also I find the talk (elsewhere on this board) that the B-2 is based upon the B-49 just a laughable as the talk that it owes anything to the Horten.

Just why would a state of the art stealth bomber be based upon an airframe designed in the 1940's? It is no more credible than saying the B-1 was based upon the company's 1940's B-45 Jet bomber. The B-2 and the YB-49 share a wingspan, a leading edge sweep angle and an overall aerodynamic philosophy, however these three elements are but the tip of the iceberg in the overall design of these two aircraft.


Waynos, Mutke says he was in a Me262. Are you saying he was flying something else or are you saying it didn't happen. Either way, I report the evidence and you will have to argue with the source, not me. As Mutke reported, some Me262s crashed doing this and it was mysterious to them as to why. The Me262 was not designed to break the sound barrier and neither was the Me162. The Me262 suffered sever buffetting and a loss of control, if I remember Mutke's words but he managed to pull it out. This man held his tongue for decades, until Unification. He is a credible source as a medical doctor in Germany rarely goes off making wild claims so that Mutke definately has something to lose by coming foward. But check him out for yourself--he is on the net somewhere. Personally, I believe him and there is gathering evidence to show this was possible--in oppositon to your British report. As mentioned in my last post, some writers now claim an intentional downplaying of the capacity of German technology by the former Allied Powers and this may be an example of that.

Howard Hughes owned an Me262. In the deserts of the American Southwest they had what they called airplane races. These were tall pylons spaced out in the desert like a race track around which airplanes raced. Howard Hughes (Hughes Aircraft) was said (I read this somewhere) to have challenged the USAF to a race against their new F-86 Sabre Jet with his Me-262 (presumably to show up the sabre-Hughes' rival company). The USAF declined.

Your attempt to frame the debate regarding the B-2 and the Horton 9 is invalid. Nobody, at least not me, ever said that Northrop did not independently develope flying wings--they certainly did. But they stopped work for about 30 years. What I said was that Northrop engineers visisted the Horton 9 (Gotha 229) in Maryland to survey ideas for their B-2. Think about it. The Horton9 had a low radar return, it was to be painted with radar reflecting paint, its surfaces were not faceted as the F-117 but rounded as the B-2 was going to be. Its air intakes and jet exhausts were recessed just as were the B-2s. Both were flying wings. Why wouldn't these engineers want to see how it had been done before? In fact, wouldn't they have been negligent otherwise. If they had just missed one thing on the Horton 9 which was not considered for the B-2, and it was discovered, there would have been trouble with Congress over funding. It only makes sense on several levels that they made this trip.

Look, I enjoy a good debate as much as anyone but I really don't know what I can add to this debate other than the fact that Northrop made this trip. You can call me all the names you wish and that fact will remain. I can't help or address any anit-German or anit-Nazi bias some of you people seem to hold, this is not about politics nor bias, it is about the history of this technology, isn't it?



posted on Jun, 2 2005 @ 10:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
Forschung,
So tell me, how was the inherent lateral instability of the Horten 9 (and every other pure flying wing) going to be overcome several decades before FBW ? Bearing in mind that the collective brains at Northrop, Armstrong Whitworth, Handley Page Avro and Vickers all ended conceding defeat in the matter by the early 1950's after several years studying Hortens results. Indeed Northrop and Armstrong Whitworth both ended up fitting vertical fins to the YB 49 and AW 52 in an attempt to address the issue, as did Avro with the aforementioned Avro 698 (later becoming the Vulcan).

[edit on 2-6-2005 by waynos]


Unlike what was cited by a German test pilot who never flew the Horton9, I read (perhaps Die Deutschen Flugzeuge 1933-1945, Kens and Nowarra, that the Horton9 handled well. Remember a glider version was built first and fully tested. In my mind the real answer to your question is that the Horton9 was a much better aircraft than it is being given credit for.



posted on Jun, 3 2005 @ 07:51 AM
link   
They were pretty lengthy replies Forschung so I wuill try and address each point as I see it.


Mutke says he was in a Me262. Are you saying he was flying something else or are you saying it didn't happen.


I am sure he knew what plane he was flying, I am saying he didn't go supersonic.


The Me262 suffered sever buffetting and a loss of control, if I remember Mutke's words but he managed to pull it out.


I believe this, but I maintain that it was because he reached the limit of the airframe not the speed of sound.
I also believe that Mutke is genuine and really believes what he is claiming, however that doesn't change the fact that the RAE proved it was impossible and that their findings support the position of Willy Messerschmitt himself, are you saying that the designer of the 262 doesn't know what he is talking about? Also the RAE is a scientific establishment, not a political one, they would have nothing to gain by falsifying this information, especially as Britains own transonic research was largely dependant on these findings at the time due to the application of German technology in the DH 108. Any positive result from this research would have been siezed upon, not denied.



some writers now claim an intentional downplaying of the capacity of German technology by the former Allied Powers and this may be an example of that.


This is also quite a useful device for making believable that which was demonstrated to be preposterous at the time, don't you think? Conspiracy theorists and revisionist historians find such claims very useful.


Howard Hughes owned an Me262. .......... Howard Hughes (Hughes Aircraft) was said (I read this somewhere) to have challenged the USAF to a race against their new F-86 Sabre Jet with his Me-262 (presumably to show up the sabre-Hughes' rival company). The USAF declined.


But this only proves that the USAF was unwilling to satisfy the whim of a spoilt playboy. As the race never took place nothing can be deduced from it. Also the top speed of the 262 was over 100mph less than that of the (still subsonic) F-86. However over a closed circuit the 262 MAY have had an advantange, or it nmay not. Like I said it proves nothing about the 262.


What I said was that Northrop engineers visisted the Horton 9 (Gotha 229) in Maryland to survey ideas for their B-2. Think about it. The Horton9 had a low radar return, it was to be painted with radar reflecting paint, its surfaces were not faceted as the F-117 but rounded as the B-2 was going to be.


Yes, I haven't argued against that, I think it much more likely that the designers visited the Horten AFTER they had evolved the early outlines for their stealth bomber and they had noticed the similarity with the wartime design, then they decided to go take a look if there was anything useful in the German plane (they would have been daft not to at least have a look) and maybe there was something and maybe there wasn't. But to take that as proof that the B-2 has its roots in the Horten design is a huge assumption without any real proof.


Its air intakes and jet exhausts were recessed just as were the B-2s.


Here is another assumption based upon a superficial similarity. The engines of the Ho IX were mounted on top of the wing spar as it was the only place they would fit where a crash landing wouldn't scrape them off, the engines cowls were then faired into the upper surface for aerodynamic reasons and the intakes were fully exposed on the wing leading edge There was no attempt made to shield the engines, this is just a theory based on the look of the plane, not the design of it.


You can call me all the names you wish and that fact will remain. I can't help or address any anit-German or anit-Nazi bias some of you people seem to hold



Have I called you names? I don't think I have.
As for anti Nazi bias, you bet I am, they are evil scum, nothing less. However I am looking at the debate from a perspective of the designs being German, rather than Nazi, I have no problem with Germans, Nazi's can come from anywhere so don't let that distinction cloud the issue. I would never dream of dismissing an aircraft simply because of where it comes from, that would be extremely ignorant (as you may have seen me trying to tell the Airbus bashers). However the willingness to believe anything that makes extravagant claims for 60 year old tech without really looking beyond the surface is also not a good thing.


Unlike what was cited by a German test pilot who never flew the Horton9, I read (perhaps Die Deutschen Flugzeuge 1933-1945, Kens and Nowarra, that the Horton9 handled well. Remember a glider version was built first and fully tested. In my mind the real answer to your question is that the Horton9 was a much better aircraft than it is being given credit for.


Except for the fact that the glider was described by its own pilots as having the problem and the crash that killed the Ho IX pilot was caused by the problem of lateral instability when it went out of control and crashed sideways. Or are you simply switched off to this.

I have asked before, why did no flying wings become operational before the B-2? Even after the supposedly marvellous Ho IX had been thoroughly examined? Because they were inherently lethal due to a complete absence of side area which is crucial to lateral stability is why. I don't understand how you canniot see this.


[edit on 3-6-2005 by waynos]



posted on Jun, 4 2005 @ 01:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
They were pretty lengthy replies Forschung so I wuill try and address each point as I see it.


Mutke says he was in a Me262. Are you saying he was flying something else or are you saying it didn't happen.


I am sure he knew what plane he was flying, I am saying he didn't go supersonic.


The Me262 suffered sever buffetting and a loss of control, if I remember Mutke's words but he managed to pull it out.


I believe this, but I maintain that it was because he reached the limit of the airframe not the speed of sound.
I also believe that Mutke is genuine and really believes what he is claiming, however that doesn't change the fact that the RAE proved it was impossible and that their findings support the position of Willy Messerschmitt himself, are you saying that the designer of the 262 doesn't know what he is talking about? Also the RAE is a scientific establishment, not a political one, they would have nothing to gain by falsifying this information, especially as Britains own transonic research was largely dependant on these findings at the time due to the application of German technology in the DH 108. Any positive result from this research would have been siezed upon, not denied.



some writers now claim an intentional downplaying of the capacity of German technology by the former Allied Powers and this may be an example of that.


This is also quite a useful device for making believable that which was demonstrated to be preposterous at the time, don't you think? Conspiracy theorists and revisionist historians find such claims very useful.


Howard Hughes owned an Me262. .......... Howard Hughes (Hughes Aircraft) was said (I read this somewhere) to have challenged the USAF to a race against their new F-86 Sabre Jet with his Me-262 (presumably to show up the sabre-Hughes' rival company). The USAF declined.


But this only proves that the USAF was unwilling to satisfy the whim of a spoilt playboy. As the race never took place nothing can be deduced from it. Also the top speed of the 262 was over 100mph less than that of the (still subsonic) F-86. However over a closed circuit the 262 MAY have had an advantange, or it nmay not. Like I said it proves nothing about the 262.


What I said was that Northrop engineers visisted the Horton 9 (Gotha 229) in Maryland to survey ideas for their B-2. Think about it. The Horton9 had a low radar return, it was to be painted with radar reflecting paint, its surfaces were not faceted as the F-117 but rounded as the B-2 was going to be.


Yes, I haven't argued against that, I think it much more likely that the designers visited the Horten AFTER they had evolved the early outlines for their stealth bomber and they had noticed the similarity with the wartime design, then they decided to go take a look if there was anything useful in the German plane (they would have been daft not to at least have a look) and maybe there was something and maybe there wasn't. But to take that as proof that the B-2 has its roots in the Horten design is a huge assumption without any real proof.


Its air intakes and jet exhausts were recessed just as were the B-2s.


Here is another assumption based upon a superficial similarity. The engines of the Ho IX were mounted on top of the wing spar as it was the only place they would fit where a crash landing wouldn't scrape them off, the engines cowls were then faired into the upper surface for aerodynamic reasons and the intakes were fully exposed on the wing leading edge There was no attempt made to shield the engines, this is just a theory based on the look of the plane, not the design of it.


You can call me all the names you wish and that fact will remain. I can't help or address any anit-German or anit-Nazi bias some of you people seem to hold



Have I called you names? I don't think I have.
As for anti Nazi bias, you bet I am, they are evil scum, nothing less. However I am looking at the debate from a perspective of the designs being German, rather than Nazi, I have no problem with Germans, Nazi's can come from anywhere so don't let that distinction cloud the issue. I would never dream of dismissing an aircraft simply because of where it comes from, that would be extremely ignorant (as you may have seen me trying to tell the Airbus bashers). However the willingness to believe anything that makes extravagant claims for 60 year old tech without really looking beyond the surface is also not a good thing.


Unlike what was cited by a German test pilot who never flew the Horton9, I read (perhaps Die Deutschen Flugzeuge 1933-1945, Kens and Nowarra, that the Horton9 handled well. Remember a glider version was built first and fully tested. In my mind the real answer to your question is that the Horton9 was a much better aircraft than it is being given credit for.


Except for the fact that the glider was described by its own pilots as having the problem and the crash that killed the Ho IX pilot was caused by the problem of lateral instability when it went out of control and crashed sideways. Or are you simply switched off to this.

I have asked before, why did no flying wings become operational before the B-2? Even after the supposedly marvellous Ho IX had been thoroughly examined? Because they were inherently lethal due to a complete absence of side area which is crucial to lateral stability is why. I don't understand how you canniot see this.


[edit on 3-6-2005 by waynos]


1. The RAE is not the only scientific establishment in the world. Now, new efforts are underway in regards to Mutke's claims. I believe Mutke. Maybe you will believe it if some scientific establishment tells you it happened.

2. Intensional Downplaying of German Capablilities: examples: German atomic bombs, U-234 and its uranium cargo, Hans Coler, exact cost of coal to gasoline conversion,German computers, German flying discs, to date unacknowledged large German rockets, fuel-air bomb. Care to discuss any of these?

3. Air intakes on Horton 9 were recessed. This is the only difference between it and the Gotha 229 which were not recessed and which is the only "Horton" to survive.

4. You disparage the Hoton9 v-1 glider saying it didn't handle well. It certainly did or they wouldn't have gone ahead with the v-2, would they?

5. You are asking me to speculate about why other flying wings didn't become operational. If the war had lasted longer, some would have but they would have been German bombers. I belive it was in the book "Hitlers Geheimobjeke im Thurigen" that it was stated that in one of these ant hills at Jonastal, a larger flying wing bomber was being built. That is all I know about that so that is little better than a rumor. The jet powered Northrop flying wing did do well but lacked the carrying capacity which the air force wanted. I am not an expert on Northrop and only know what I remember as a child (my father was in aerospace) and I lived 6 miles from Northrop, less from Douglas and North American, Garrett, about 40 from Rocketdyne, Weber and so on. Everyone's father worked at one of these places and aircraft was a hot topic then (1956-on). There are always political considerations in awarding military contracts and this may have been a factor but the simple answer is that I have no idea.

Yes, a flying wing is less stable than a "normal" aircraft but the Horton brothers were genuises and under alot of pressure. I think they got it right without many of the technologies we consider necessary today.

6. I don't have any bad feelings against Nazis, Communists, Monarchists, Bathists, Japanese Imperialists, Iranian Mullahs or whatever. But you are right to call it German technology rather than Nazi technology unless you want to call the first atomic bomb dropped on Japan a Democrat Bomb.

The topic of this tread was a possible connection between the Horton9 and the B-2. I say yes since the Northop engineers visited the Horton and there are design similarities. I know nothing about any previous Northrop flying wings and their connection to the B-2 except everybody says Northrop was chosen because of the huge amount of test data Northrop had on flying wings. I will tell you that most German writers on the subject say something like: The B-2 had a German father. These guys know about Northrop and their flying wings very well but they are looking past that and to what the B-2 and Horton9 have in common.



posted on Jun, 4 2005 @ 03:41 AM
link   
It seems quite ok... However, yu just never know...



posted on Jun, 4 2005 @ 08:38 AM
link   
1 - No the RAE isn't the only one, but it IS the one which thoroughly researched this AT THE TIME without an agenda to rewrite history but in the interests of furthering Britains own transonic research. You have not answered this point nor addressed the fact that Willoy Messerschmitt himself said it was not possible, don't you think he would have liked the credit for building the firsty supersonic plane?


2 Downplaying German capabilities - changing the subject is not an answer to the question. I have discussed the German A bomb effort on another thread, this point was about Mutke and his mistaken belief- not denying german tech.

3 The Ho IX intakes - no, they are not recessed, they are holes in the leading edge, they just happen to be a different shape to the intakes of the Gotha version. The Intakes of the B-2 are deliberately placed over the wing surface with baffles to prevent the fan being 'seen'. No such measure was tried by ther Hortens.

Likewise the exhausts - they are not positioned over the wing surface for stealth reasons, this is a modern interpretation placed upon this feature in the light of what we now know about stealth. The reason they look like they do is because the engines are positioned on the centre of gravity and the exhausts of early jets had to be kept as short as possible to avoid loss of thrust, the stealth benefit of the arrangement was accidental (but not the stealthy aspect of the airframe design - this was deliberate, but not enough was known about the refelectivity of radar by jet engines for Horten to even consider it at the time).

This is similar to the mistaken belief that the Me 262 had swept wings because of advanced aerodynamics when in fact the swings were swept back to correct a CG problem that had become apparent in the wind tunnel. Of course German research on swept wings was real enough, I merely point out that everyone assumed this was why the 262 had them when it isn't, same as you are doing with the engine arrangement of the Horten.

4

You disparage the Hoton9 v-1 glider saying it didn't handle well. It certainly did or they wouldn't have gone ahead with the v-2, would they?


Its not about disparaging anything, that statement is pure speculation when what I am saying is KNOWN and PROVEN facts about why the prototype crashed and how all such aircraft behave - its simple aerodynamics. An aeroplane NEEDS lateral and directional control which, in the absence of a fin and rudder, can onlyy be provided by a powerful FBW system working its nads off to maintain control - as the Horten had neither how did it work? Oh, thats right, it crashed!

In answer to why would they have gone ahead with the v-2 version, how about desperation as they were losing the war and it MIGHT have worked?

5 same as above - I'm not asking you to speculate about other flying wings as much as I am asking you to realise why the concept itself, as popular as it was, was unworkable. Simple aerodynamics, the problem of which the Hortens were not alone in thinking they could overcome, we now know that without FBW it cannot be done. That is why the YB-49 and AW-52 sprouted fins, the Horten never did.

6 I would have bad feelings about anyone who's stated aim was to remove a race from the panet, whateve they call themselves. And no, the first Atom bomb dropped on Japan wasn't a democrat bomb, or even an American bomb. It was an Aliied bomb, we were all responsible. Your point?



posted on Jun, 4 2005 @ 09:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Forschung
2. Intensional Downplaying of German Capablilities: examples: German atomic bombs, U-234 and its uranium cargo, Hans Coler, exact cost of coal to gasoline conversion,German computers, German flying discs, to date unacknowledged large German rockets, fuel-air bomb. Care to discuss any of these?


- Waynos has cover the other aspects you raised quite nicely so I thought I'd make a passing comment on these comments if I may. It's off topic but I think it fair to answer them as the impression is being given that there is a systematic denial of (the, now, rather ancient) german tech, which could hardly be further from the truth.....

......it's always being raked over in one form or another here.


I don't see anyone "intentionally downplaying German capabilities".

I do see people challenging the unsubstantiated extravegant claims that have been made.

1) The 'German Atomic bomb'.
There was no bomb......as in the Germans during WW2 did not have an actual atomic bomb.
(....er, we might have noticed if the truth was different.)

They were researching (like everyone else) but failed to produce a bomb.
End of story.

2) U 234 and it's uranium cargo.
That cargo of uranium oxide is reportedly part of what went into the US bomb.

......and so what?
An ironic, fast and sensible use of the suitable materials to hand to finally try to bring the war to a speedy end, IMO.

3) Lignite to gasoline.
Very old news.

Again, interesting tech and usage of limited resources but ultimately, again, so what? When has this ever been denied?

4) German computers.
I have never seen this denied, covered up or hidden in any way.

There is a legitimate dispute as to whether the Zuse machine merits the claim to be the "first computer".

.....and so what?


Konrad Zuse (June 22, 1910 - December 18, 1995) was a German engineer and computer pioneer. His greatest achievement was the completion of the first functional tape-stored-program-controlled computer, the Z3, in 1941.

The Z3 is sometimes claimed to be "first computer" as such, though this depends on complex and subtle definitional issues, as the machine was not truly general-purpose in the manner of later machines (see the article of history of computing for a thorough discussion).
Zuse also designed a high-level programming language, Plankalkül, allegedly in 1945, although this was a theoretical contribution, since the language was never actually implemented within his lifetime and did not directly influence early implemented languages.

In addition to his technical work, Zuse founded the first computer startup company in 1946. This company built the Z4, which became the first commercial computer, leased to ETH Zürich in 1950.

www.answers.com...

5) Flying discs.
Circular wings are no secret either......as well as being a dead end.

6)"unacknowledged large rockets"......would this be concepts like the 2 stage A4/A9?
Who on earth has ever denied German rocket tech?
We had it constantly referred to during the Apollo missions.

(did you miss that......are you too young to have experienced and remembered that?)

.......and if you want to make wild claims about what 'they were just about to do if only they had the chance' in WW2 I suggest you look at the post war period 1945 - 1957/8 (a period of 12yrs! no less).

In the US they had the most lavish funding aqnd resourcing possible (ditto in the USSR) and it took a long long time until they could even perfect a satellite launch.

7) Fuel air bomb.
So they experimented with chemical bombs, who didn't?

They also did things like the sound cannon, the wind cannon and formulated all sorts of strange and wacky ideas.

Why on earth should people be constantly going over old ground (now 60yrs + ago) just to acknowledge that (maybe) some German guys had what look like a similar-ish idea, or drew a sketch that looks a little like x, y or z, a long time ago?

Germany slugged it out with most of the developed world for 6yrs, they didn't keep it going that long because they were 'rubbish' or in some kind of manner biologically inferior; they had some excellent ideas and some extremely bright people.......... just like everyone else.
Pity about their political leadership back then.



posted on Jun, 4 2005 @ 10:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey

Originally posted by Forschung
2. Intensional Downplaying of German Capablilities: examples: German atomic bombs, U-234 and its uranium cargo, Hans Coler, exact cost of coal to gasoline conversion,German computers, German flying discs, to date unacknowledged large German rockets, fuel-air bomb. Care to discuss any of these?


- Waynos has cover the other aspects you raised quite nicely so I thought I'd make a passing comment on these comments if I may. It's off topic but I think it fair to answer them as the impression is being given that there is a systematic denial of (the, now, rather ancient) german tech, which could hardly be further from the truth.....

......it's always being raked over in one form or another here.


I don't see anyone "intentionally downplaying German capabilities".

I do see people challenging the unsubstantiated extravegant claims that have been made.

1) The 'German Atomic bomb'.
There was no bomb......as in the Germans during WW2 did not have an actual atomic bomb.
(....er, we might have noticed if the truth was different.)

They were researching (like everyone else) but failed to produce a bomb.
End of story.

2) U 234 and it's uranium cargo.
That cargo of uranium oxide is reportedly part of what went into the US bomb.

......and so what?
An ironic, fast and sensible use of the suitable materials to hand to finally try to bring the war to a speedy end, IMO.

3) Lignite to gasoline.
Very old news.

Again, interesting tech and usage of limited resources but ultimately, again, so what? When has this ever been denied?

4) German computers.
I have never seen this denied, covered up or hidden in any way.

There is a legitimate dispute as to whether the Zuse machine merits the claim to be the "first computer".

.....and so what?


Konrad Zuse (June 22, 1910 - December 18, 1995) was a German engineer and computer pioneer. His greatest achievement was the completion of the first functional tape-stored-program-controlled computer, the Z3, in 1941.

The Z3 is sometimes claimed to be "first computer" as such, though this depends on complex and subtle definitional issues, as the machine was not truly general-purpose in the manner of later machines (see the article of history of computing for a thorough discussion).
Zuse also designed a high-level programming language, Plankalkül, allegedly in 1945, although this was a theoretical contribution, since the language was never actually implemented within his lifetime and did not directly influence early implemented languages.

In addition to his technical work, Zuse founded the first computer startup company in 1946. This company built the Z4, which became the first commercial computer, leased to ETH Zürich in 1950.

www.answers.com...

5) Flying discs.
Circular wings are no secret either......as well as being a dead end.

6)"unacknowledged large rockets"......would this be concepts like the 2 stage A4/A9?
Who on earth has ever denied German rocket tech?
We had it constantly referred to during the Apollo missions.

(did you miss that......are you too young to have experienced and remembered that?)

.......and if you want to make wild claims about what 'they were just about to do if only they had the chance' in WW2 I suggest you look at the post war period 1945 - 1957/8 (a period of 12yrs! no less).

In the US they had the most lavish funding aqnd resourcing possible (ditto in the USSR) and it took a long long time until they could even perfect a satellite launch.

7) Fuel air bomb.
So they experimented with chemical bombs, who didn't?

They also did things like the sound cannon, the wind cannon and formulated all sorts of strange and wacky ideas.

Why on earth should people be constantly going over old ground (now 60yrs + ago) just to acknowledge that (maybe) some German guys had what look like a similar-ish idea, or drew a sketch that looks a little like x, y or z, a long time ago?

Germany slugged it out with most of the developed world for 6yrs, they didn't keep it going that long because they were 'rubbish' or in some kind of manner biologically inferior; they had some excellent ideas and some extremely bright people.......... just like everyone else.
Pity about their political leadership back then.


SmikeyPinkey,

When I say the word "undervaluation", I am going to reference you from now on because your post is exactly what I am talking about. Point by point:

1. German Atomic Bomb: There was a bomb built by the Germans. I am going to give you the easy references first: Rainer Karlsch and Mark Weller writing in the June issue of Physics World disclose actual plans for an German atomic bomb. And to really stick it to ya, it was a plutonium bomb and the Germans weren't even supposed to know this word according to the Farm Hill conversations. Karlsch recently wrote a book, Hitlers Bombe, in which he describes all this and a German test of a bomb. Not only do we have this acedemic, we have eye witness testimony of Luigi Romersa, a person of responsibility during and after the war who has written an account of the test, October 1944, Ruegen Island. Joseph Farrell in his book (in English), Reich of the Black Sun recounts Romersa and another German witness who say the test from the air (a guy name Zinsser). Rogue1 has this book and can verify for you. By the way, this report was contained in an Intelligence report, Office of Chief of Naval Operations, Navy Department, "Top Secret", A42-TS-46, I can't make out the declassification date. Besides this, I have a French language source, an eyewitness account of the test contained in an article called "La Fusee Pilotee "T", which was translated for me by a French speaking American. Post war American teams were running around with Geiger counters at ground zero, getting high radiation. The Karlsch information was based on the work of researchers Friedrich Georg and Thomas Mehner which I have mentioned earlier. Georg wrote and is writing the "Siegeswaffen" series but has a book in English on amazon.com Mehner has written three books of German atomic PROJECTS, plural. You can google Kopp or Kopp Verlag which is the publisher and they have a web-site.

2. U-234. Yes, German uranium oxide, U-235, did go to Oak Ridge after capture. This wasn't the only shipment to Japan, however. The point is that to this very day, the US National Archives has deleted all references to uranium oxide on the cargo list and flatly denies it was ever on-board. Is this undervaluation or just fraud? Fortunately, the US Navy Yard where the cargo manifest ended up kept an original copy. I have the copy. Uranium oxide is on their list, no attempt to defraud those who want to know. Another point that you seem to have missed: The Germans were making enough uranium for BOTH sides. Does this sound like a program which was inept and confused and unorganized as Robert Powers says in Heisenberg's War (the standard for undervaluation).

3. Lignite to Gasoline?--Old News? How about doing if for 8 cents a gallon or even 20 cents a gallon in 1955? Who did it, we did it using the German processes, there were two. Ask Professor Arnold Krammer at Texas A&M, Modern German History Professor. We built two refineries with were so efficient the lobbists influencing the Eisenhower Administration had Ike tear both down and bury the issue. Write to Dr. Krammer, he will send you a little booklet on this. Unless you are getting gas at less than a dollar a gallon, this is undervaluation. Just a tease---how about refining crude with ultrasound?

4. German Computers never covered up or denied? Let me give you a reference: British Intelligence Objective Sub-Committe report number 142, page 9, "D. Calculation machine of Dipl. Ing. K. Zuese" "...who had considerable experience of calculation machines gave it as his opinion that the apparatus did not employ any special features which were in advance of Allied knowledge." This after stating that the computers were used for aerodynamic, ballistic, and statistical calculations. They were looking at Z-3s and Z-4s which programmed firing solutions for the V-2 rocket and which where used in the headquartes of the Kammler Group think tank. Yet, the Allies let Zuse languish, not even offering him a contract---the Allies had never even seen a digital computer. It took them until 1952 to realize their mistake and went back to Germany, begging Zuse to come to the USA or just to do consulting work if not. Zues told them Nein, he had formed a company in Germany and had things going his way. By the way, the Germans also invented the first programmable language and magnetic storage tape.

5. German flying discs. "they are no secret and a dead end". Why do you think they "are no secret"? The Allies certainly kept them a secret and did everything humanly imaginable to keep them a secret including inventing aliens and alien abductions. You ought to thank those people who spent years working to bring this to light--something you have just dismissed as nothing. The Allies and especially the Americans lied over and over to keep this a secret. It was only recently that this grip was broken and we have this information. I don't know what you think people see at Area 51, but the people I have talked to and who have shown me pictures (Gary Schultz for instance) describe saucer shapes. Flying saucers are alive and well and are a German invention (many primary references available if your are interested).

6. Large German rockets. The Allies made the Peenemuende scientists deny anything larger than a V-2. Now, we have a FOIA document in which a POW describes two types of V-2s. One 45 feet long and one 70 feet long. The pow called the large on an "A-1" instead of A-10 but clearly that is what it was. Thomas Mehner describes (Atomziel New York) a test firing of a larger-than-V2-rocket in Thuringia, with several eye witnesses. Another FOIA document describes a V-3 (larger than a V-2) and includes a place of manufacture and diagram of the rocket. Friedrich Georg in his Siegeswaffen series describes many, many large rocket projects and a V-3 or V-4 which may actually have been fired from the Norwegian highlands to Manchester or Birmingham (I forget which).

7. Fuel-air bomb: Nobody ever thought of this before Dr. Mario Zippermayr. Dr. Zippermayr did all the theoritical as well as practical work in developing this weapon. It was an explosion which could be as large as one mile in diameter. I posted a description of this on another thread concerning German "Firedamp", which is another thing entirely. Zippermayr's invention was kept secret until the late 1970s and even until 1999 in which yours truly appealed to the Army and USAF on a FOIA request and got five files on Zippermayr. More to the point of this discussion, the US military Intelligence invented a whole technology as a cover-story for Zippermayr. They invented the vortex cannon to mask Zippermayr's work at Lofter, Tyrol, and their interest in it and him. The Vortex Cannon never existed at all. The fuel-air bomb is still feared today. This is a classic example of a US coverup and undervaluation.

You know, I once heard a guy of talk radio say the same thing: "Why do we keep going over old ground with Nazi technology? After all, and after 60 years, we know all there is to know about them". Nothing could be farther from the truth. Every modern technology I know was either substantially improved by the Reich Germans (liquid fuel rockets for instance) or invented by them. The only possible exception may be radar but the Germans did work of radar independently. I am no radar expert and there appear to be some here, so I will leave that to them.

SmikeyPinky, I don't know if you want to go on debating these points or not but I can tell you that these items are only a tip of the iceberg and may even seem insignificant developments once the full truth is known.



posted on Jun, 5 2005 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by Forschung
1. German Atomic Bomb: There was a bomb built by the Germans.


- This is utterly false and typical of the gross revisionist distortion of the historical truth connected with much of the new so-called discoveries......all of which somehow sound great and so amazingly impressive......right up until they run into the fact that that side lost.
No A-bomb. No flying wing 'Amerika bomber'. No last minute advanced rocket to save Germany from total and utter (fully deserved) defeat.

There was no such thing as a German Atomic bomb in WW2.
Had there been one we'd all have known all about it.

It would have been world news......if only because they would have made sure everyone knew about it (via all possible channels, so the Swiss and the Irish being neutral would have been the obvious conduits) in an effort to gain breathing space if nothing else.
They'd have not hesitated to use it and bluff that there were more even if there weren't.

Wise up. It never happened.

You really expect people to believe that as Germany collapsed around them the nazis would have wasted their supposed only example of an A-bomb (no matter how primitive and crude) in a test?

......and it left so little trace that only a book writer 60yrs later is able to uncover it...... with it backed up by a dubious sketch and a couple of non-expert witnesses!?

(You do know conventional bombs can create 'mushroom clouds' too, hmm?)

Sorry, this is utterly ridiculous.......and in any case it isn't even what has been claimed (see below).


I am going to give you the easy references first: Rainer Karlsch and Mark Weller writing in the June issue of Physics World disclose actual plans for an German atomic bomb.


- They did no such thing; Karlsch made some claims (again) and Walker (not Weller, actually) has certainly not made any such claim.

In fact what claims there actually are depend on which publication you read -


The pair says the rough schematic does not imply that the Nazis built or even were close to building a nuclear bomb, but it shows they had progressed farther toward that goal than is conventionally thought.

The article appears in the June issue of the British monthly Physics World.

www.abc.net.au...



And to really stick it to ya, it was a plutonium bomb and the Germans weren't even supposed to know this word according to the Farm Hill conversations.


- Vague and unsubstantiated claims don't "stick" anything to anyone, actually.

.......and the sketch we have been shown being used as some sort of 'proof' is frankly laughable.


Karlsch recently wrote a book, Hitlers Bombe, in which he describes all this and a German test of a bomb. Not only do we have this acedemic, we have eye witness testimony of Luigi Romersa, a person of responsibility during and after the war who has written an account of the test, October 1944, Ruegen Island.


- Yeah, a guy writes a book for the 'Hitler's gang could/should really have won' fan-club and unearths a guy or 2 who say they saw a large explosion.

Hardly conclusive.

Never mind it not making the slightest sense nor having the tinniest shred of actual evidence......

......oh, let's not forget, except for a laughable 'sketch' which is undated and has no references or supporting documentation to give it any contextual credibility whatsoever.

In short, if that is all there is, pathetic.

Exactly the kind of vaccuous non-proof the 'Hitler's gang could/should have won' fan club are desparate to believe.


Post war American teams were running around with Geiger counters at ground zero, getting high radiation.


- Proving what? (even if true for this particular claimed area)

No-one is disputing nor covering up that the Germans were experimenting with this stuff and tried.
No-one is disputing nor covering up that the Germans attempted several times to construct a working atomic pile.

Radiation traces can be present without any sign nor need of a working atomic bomb......go ask your nearest hospital X-ray dept if you need proof.


2. U-234. Yes, German uranium oxide, U-235, did go to Oak Ridge after capture. This wasn't the only shipment to Japan, however. The point is that to this very day, the US National Archives has deleted all references to uranium oxide on the cargo list and flatly denies it was ever on-board. Is this undervaluation or just fraud?


- What it sounds like is as far away from an A-bomb as ever.

Uranium oxide alone is nothing like the be-all and end-all of making an A-bomb.


Does this sound like a program which was inept and confused and unorganized as Robert Powers says in Heisenberg's War (the standard for undervaluation).


- It sounds like they made a fair bit of uranium oxide and it falling into allied hands was a surprising blessing, is all.


3.Unless you are getting gas at less than a dollar a gallon, this is undervaluation.


- Your original point was that German tech was covered up and down-played.

I have said it was not.

It is well known much of Germany's gasoline came from lignite.

How does this fit with your original claims?
Who covered this up, down-played it or denied it?


4. German Computers never covered up or denied?


- I even have you a quoted reference showing the total lack of denial or cover up.



Yet, the Allies let Zuse languish, not even offering him a contract---the Allies had never even seen a digital computer.


- This is simply not true.
The allies had made their own.
I suggest you check out the Atanasoff-Berry Computer.


It took them until 1952 to realize their mistake and went back to Germany, begging Zuse to come to the USA or just to do consulting work if not. Zues told them Nein, he had formed a company in Germany and had things going his way.


- .....and. so. what.
Germany was in a mess immeadiatley post war; the fact that Zuse wasn't sought out and offered mega-bucks straight away proves nothing.


By the way, the Germans also invented the first programmable language and magnetic storage tape.


- ....which you'll see referred to in the quote I gave.
That must be that "down-playing" and "covering up" in action again, huh?



5. German flying discs. "they are no secret and a dead end". Why do you think they "are no secret"?


-

How secret is this? How spaceship like is it?

.....or how much like a typical 1930's- 1940's low tech prototype does it really look.
Circular wings, so what?


I don't know what you think people see at Area 51, but the people I have talked to and who have shown me pictures (Gary Schultz for instance) describe saucer shapes.


- Right now I'd bet they are looking at very secret US tech dating from now to maybe back a decade or 2.
Failing that it could be an elaborate diversion to keep people away from the real secret stuff which is elsewhere.

In other words nothing to do with 60yr old German tech IMO.


Flying saucers are alive and well and are a German invention (many primary references available if your are interested).


- "Flying saucers" might be but I do not believe they are related to the German circular winged planes at all.


6. Large German rockets. The Allies made the Peenemuende scientists deny anything larger than a V-2.


- So how come we know about the proposed A10 designs?

Everything you have claimed here is mere assertion without evidence of any kind and in the face of the facts.

Your original claims of cover up and down-playing are rather at odds given the sheer huge volume of literature about the German rocket designs.


7. Fuel-air bomb:The Vortex Cannon never existed at all.


- You can claim this is all a lie but there are many who dispute your opinion.
As usual you simply deny other people's sources.


The fuel-air bomb is still feared today. This is a classic example of a US coverup and undervaluation.


- No it isn't.
It's a question of - even if true......something extremely debatable - "big deal".
Even if it were so that today's fuel air bomb is a - huge - development of an original German concept/idea (that made no impact on the war whatsoever), so what?


You know, I once heard a guy of talk radio say the same thing: "Why do we keep going over old ground with Nazi technology? After all, and after 60 years, we know all there is to know about them". Nothing could be farther from the truth.


- Er, most people don't spend any time thinking about this much at all; actually.


Every modern technology I know was either substantially improved by the Reich Germans (liquid fuel rockets for instance) or invented by them.


- There may in certain cases be a connection in the dim and distant past......and in some only the most tenuous as the German idea was way off beam from what we now know of as usable - but really, so what and who cares?

That's kind of like claiming the car manufacturers of today are all basically just using Ford 'model t' tech. There is a connection of sorts but it is so far back and so far removed from today that it really carries little or no relevance at all.

The Me 262 was the first operational jet fighter, the Heinkel He 280 was the first jet fighter (facts that are neither covered up nor down-played).
And. So. What.

Other than being a slightly interesting historical footnote (that is for those with any kind of sense of proportion and who aren't 'starstruck' by WW2 German tech) what slightest relevance do those facts have today in today's world, hmmmm?
What kind of debt do you think we supposedly 'owe' because the losing side in WW2 won the jet fighter race by a few months, hmmm?
What has that to do with todays' F22 or Typhoon or Mig 29etc etc.....or anything at all really?

I'm perfectly happy to acknowledge the German 'firsts', I'm perfectly happy to agree that in many cases considering the circumstances especially they were surprisingly capable.
They had their clever and hard working people just like everyone else.
.....and what?
Who is denying this or covering it up.........as opposed to those who would elevate the German tech to a level way above everyone else and what it actually was, hmmm?

I won't go along with the idea that 'we' (I guess that means the winning side) have suppressed or denied knowledge of German tech.......our libraries, bookstalls and vitually every media is full of endless (and let's be honest - cos they have very little new to say now - rather tedious) German WW2 stuff.
An excellent example would be 'The History channel', it is almost the 'Germans in WW2' channel these days - and rather boring for it I'd say.
No sign of cover ups or down-playing there, hmmm?
Which is a bit sad and weird IMO that anyone would obsess over all that like that.
WW2 had a hell of a lot more to it than the axis side.


The only possible exception may be radar but the Germans did work of radar independently. I am no radar expert and there appear to be some here, so I will leave that to them.


- "The only possible exception"!?
You have got to be kidding.


I can tell you that these items are only a tip of the iceberg and may even seem insignificant developments once the full truth is known.


- The actual "truth" is that many people the world over were working on similar topics of work.
That's how in peace time the 'scientific community' and peer review actually works in so many fields so what is the surprise in many areas people were aware of each others work and were working on similar, hmmmm?

Almost all can make these kinds of claim to be the root of what we have today because for most it is true.

But ultimately this is as pointless as it is meaningless.........there is no real "significance" left in any of this stuff for today........except for those intent, for their own, usually political, reasons, on ascribing it all such great meaning and point, hmmmmm?

This 'discussion' is totally pointless; you deny anyone elses sources and generally either refuse to supply your own or hold out dubious single - or few - sources as if they alone have anything of value to say.

In short I can't be bothered going around in circles for your entertainment.

(.......and by the way, you already gave yourself away as to what you were really about with your previous ludicrous "I win" comment earlier.)

Good day.


[edit on 5-6-2005 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Jun, 5 2005 @ 10:52 PM
link   
SmikeyPinky,

Are you getting paid by the word? I don't care about the number of words you write. Just deal with ONE, any one of the references I cited. I don't care about your name-calling. The uranium oxide in question was U-235, if that doesn't mean something to you, check a reference on the subject. The Arthur Sack airplane has nothing to do with German saucers anymore than the US flying flapjack. Go to the sources if you have a problem and specifically dispute what you don't like. Post that. I am not going to debate you, you are going to debate the facts.



posted on Jun, 6 2005 @ 07:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Forschung
SmikeyPinky,

Are you getting paid by the word?


- It's called thoroughly rebutting your assertions and unsubstantiated revisionist points one by one.

(It's just a little bit of typing......and no, I don't get paid for writting here).


The uranium oxide in question was U-235, if that doesn't mean something to you, check a reference on the subject.


- If you think 'uranium oxide = an atomic bomb' then clearly you have no clue whatsoever about the subject.


The Arthur Sack airplane has nothing to do with German saucers anymore than the US flying flapjack. Go to the sources if you have a problem and specifically dispute what you don't like.


- Personally I find the available material and so-called sources about German flying saucers thin and highly dubious to say the least.

Produce, ummmm, say half a dozen reputable sources and I may think again.
(but you can't can you?)


I am not going to debate you, you are going to debate the facts.


- You have debated nothing.
You have made a series of assertions centring around your claims that WW2 German technology has been suppressed, denied or down-played.

I have given several examples (with reputable references) to show this is simply untrue......
.....and in the case of the latest rubbish about a supposed actual German A-bomb I have even been able to show that the claims made (that there was one and it was tested) are not even the claims of the historian connected to this story!

(and I note your utter avoidance of that issue).

You, on the otherhand, would show me the world of UFO-logy and all that as 'evidence'.
In other words a place where facts are few and theory and mere claim rife.

No thanks.

(BTW that is another instance where you have referred to "name calling"; who has called you names on this thread here?
If you are going to accuse people of that an example of this would be nice - cos it is a breach of the rules here - please.)

You will no doubt carry on believing just what you want to believe.
Enjoy.
Bye.

[edit on 6-6-2005 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Jun, 6 2005 @ 01:26 PM
link   
Just in case anyone is interested.

Here is a reputable source describing Germany's synthetic fuel program and how it was done.

(obviously another source who missed the call to deny, down-play or cover-up this supposedly 'advanced and secret' WW2 German tech.
)

www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil...

It's an interesting story, but hardly the stuff of cover-ups, denial or down-playing........and the tech itself is very well known within the industry.

Who knows? Maybe one day it will be looked at again.

......and for those wondering what the German reliance on 'Lignite' (a slightly 'softer' 'brown coal', inferior to the usual black hard coal) would have done for Germany......and did do for East Germany (cos the communists kept using it way beyond the level of the west for 40yrs or so) check this reputable source out.

www.american.edu...



posted on Jun, 7 2005 @ 02:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey

Originally posted by Forschung



The uranium oxide in question was U-235, if that doesn't mean something to you, check a reference on the subject.


- If you think 'uranium oxide = an atomic bomb' then clearly you have no clue whatsoever about the subject.



Quite true, Uranium Oxide is commonly nown as yellow cake is normally no more than 10% enriched U235. It has to undergo enrichment to reach a level of 93% ( from my memory ) , to be considered weapons grade.
The process of enrichment requires about the same level of investment and research needed to produce the rest of a bomb.
There has never been any evidence that the Germans were actively enriching uranium.
Quite frankly they would have needed an operation on par with the Manhattan Project to be able to produce a bomb before the end of the war.



posted on Jun, 7 2005 @ 07:18 PM
link   
SmikeyPinkey,

OK, so out of all those objections you had to "German High-tech", the seven items you picked out and for which I gave you references, you have decided to contest: German processes of coal to oil, the meaningfulness of uranium oxide in U-234, and the "weakness" of the German flying disc as a reality---right? And of these, you post something about German atomic refining and no other documentation is offered---right?

1. Coal to Oil: Germans invented----INVENTED, SmikeyPinkey, two seperate methods: the Hydrogenation Method and the Fischer Topische Process. Any type of coal could be used in these processes as the Americans were later to find out. They built a hydrogenation plant and one of the tests was to use coal from sites all over the country. All were successful. All producted, commercially, gasoline for less than 25 cents a gallon. No cover up SmikeyPinkey? Where is it now? Why did the government dismantle it? What else could be made using these processes? Did you know, for instance, that Mobil Oil Company uses this processes today to synthesize its synthetic oil Mobil One? Did they pay the German inventors for patent rights--no they got them free of charge as booty but they did acknowledge the history of their product when it hit the market in 1975. If Eisenhower had allowed plants such as the one or two experimental refineries to be built, we would not have an oil crisis today. In fact, since the USA has the largest coal reserves in the world, we here would be exporting oil and gasoline. This is a clear example of undervaluation of German technology by people who didn't have a clue or were bribed.

2. U-234 and its uranium cargo. SmikeyPinkey, the Japanese had their own supplies of yellow cake in North Korea and possible Manchuria. Nobody would ever bother to transport ordinary yellow cake in a cargo hold of a U-boat in special lead-lined steel cannisters. This was refined uranium 235 rendered to oxide for ease of transport and storage. Remember, the Japanese just had a warehouse accident with this chemical circa 1997-98 in which there was some sort of min-explosion becasue the uranium oxide was stored in too close a proximity and even though it was in oxide form, it had exceeded critical mass. I am not sure of the details as they were kept secret but there was definately a problem here.

In addition, I will paraphrase a story Philip Henschell tells in his book concerning Hitler's atomic weaponry (this one is in English as was one by a man named Brooks--sorry---I am away from my library today or I would give you exact references as I own both books). U-234 was a coverted typ 9 U-boat, converted from mine laying to transport. March, 1945, secret weaponry, microfilm, scientists, uranium 235, blueprints are being loaded onto U-234 for transport to Japan. Along with this cargo are three Japanese officers (who are fluent in German). The steel canisters in question are dockside and a Japanese officer is painting the lettering on the side of each cannister "U-235". A German sailor, not in the know about the cargo, stops the Japanese Officer and being an ever correct German informs him that this U-boat is U-234 not U-235, thinking the lettering had something to do with cargo routing. The Japanese officer smiled but finished and having had some additional time to think, told the German sailor that this cargo had originally been intended to be carried by U-235 but now there was a change of plans. The German went aboard and everybody was happy.

Regarding you link to German refining methods, let me say that this is just another topic of some contention. In fact, the German were refining so much uranium that they really didn't care about finding critical mass---they didn't have to. Dr. Friedrich Lachner even wrote a paper on this saying that several pieces of uranium or plutionium could be "imploded" together and so you really only need guess on the high side of critical mass. Of course you need a neutron source. Thomas Mehner (one the the sources supplied) suggests that the Germans had a method of refining uranium which we do not use today and may not even be aware of.

SmikeyPinkey, do you think the US National Archives and Records Administration would be concerned in covering up shipment of ordinary, unrefined yellow cake when their own records list the sources and locations by which the Germans mined yellow cake?

3. German Flying Discs. It sounds weak to you? Well, that is simply because you don't know anything about the subject. I told you I can bury you with references on this one. If you think this is a myth or weak, try reading Joseph Andreas Epp's "Die Realitaet der Flugscheiben" (the reality of the flying discs). Epp was an engineer and consultant to three of these projects (Miethe, Habermohl, Schriever). Epp's book tells the story from his perspective and has a complete time-line, history and, oh yes, picture of the Habermohl disc in flight which he took himself.

Also, very briefly, we have written testimony of Ing. Georg Klein who ran these same projects for the Luftwaffe and then for the SS when Dr. Ing. Hans Kammler took over. Klein saw---SAW---the Habermohl disc take off. He is interviewed in several German language newspapers after the war.

You also might take a look at FBI reports (available from the Dept. of Justice if you file FOIA request) numbers 6283894-383 62-838994-384, 6283894-385. These are interviews with a prisoner of war who immigrated to the USA in the 1950s. They all describe a field propulsion German flying disc ---about 75 feet in diameter and how it stopped ignition-based engines as it few out of an SS compound.

There is also the signed statement of test pilot Otto Lange who claims to have flown a German flying disc for 350 to 500 kilometers.

If you get through these, I have more for you. Just saying they are "weak"
or that you don't like them is not going to cut it. There is a whole new world of technical history here now and coming whether you like it or not.



posted on Jun, 7 2005 @ 11:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Forschung

2. U-234 and its uranium cargo. SmikeyPinkey, the Japanese had their own supplies of yellow cake in North Korea and possible Manchuria. Nobody would ever bother to transport ordinary yellow cake in a cargo hold of a U-boat in special lead-lined steel cannisters. This was refined uranium 235 rendered to oxide for ease of transport and storage. Remember, the Japanese just had a warehouse accident with this chemical circa 1997-98 in which there was some sort of min-explosion becasue the uranium oxide was stored in too close a proximity and even though it was in oxide form, it had exceeded critical mass. I am not sure of the details as they were kept secret but there was definately a problem here.



No Uranium Oxide is Yellow Cake, the Uranium the Germans had was never enriched to more than 10%. The Japanese didn't have any Uranium Oxide stores either.
LOL, your statement that the Germans turned enriched U235 nito LEU ( Uranium Oxide ) is completly ridiculous. why make someting more bulky and harder to transport, not to mention undoing all the work to enrich it in the first place. Oh yeah btw, Yellow cake was far from ordinary back then lol.

The Japanese incidnet occurred when too much U235 was mixed together. The result being that it fissioned releasing a lethal dose of radiation over a small area.

[edit on 7-6-2005 by rogue1]



posted on Jun, 8 2005 @ 04:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by Forschung
SmikeyPinkey,

OK, so out of all those objections you had to "German High-tech


- You seem to be under some sort of (deliberate?) misconception.

I have not denied the achievements of WW2 German tech and I have provided reputable links throughout this discourse to show that those achievements have not been covered up, down-played or denied (excepting the anti-gravity/flying saucer claims.......but I'll happily leave you to you enjoy your time with the endless speculative and unsubstianted claims of that 'swamp'.)

As I have pointed out before there are plenty of examples of mainstream media where people are endlessly raking over the ashes of that period.

What I have done is dispute the absurdly inflated claims of what they achieved and your contention that this has been down-played, covered up and denied.

1) The German atomic bomb.

Never became a reality, did not exist.

2) German rocket tech.

This existed and has been done to death in every media possible; ie not covered up, denied or down-played.
We all even saw what it led to after 12yrs+ of lavish funding and research in the USA and USSR.

3) Lignite to gasoline.

Not covered up, denied or down-played.
This is simply a technology (in large part born of emergency and necessity) whos reason for being and time has been and gone; it may come back again but given the obvious environmental impact that looks unlikely.

4) German disk planes.

I'm not going into the realms of ufo-logy and speculative claims.
You are welcome to it.

5) German computers.

Again not down-played, denied or covered up.
I provided links to illustrate this is fully documented and available information.

6)Fuel air bomb.

Big deal.

I've addressed each of you points and previously provided several links to back my claims (from reputable sources); you have presented no such evidence and continue to make mere claims and assertions.

I have repeatedly given credit to the efforts of the hard work and ingenuity of Germany's WW2 scientists
(as I have those in all the nations of that time......but that is the point, they all had advanced tech and the most ingenious ideas, sometimes in the same areas, sometimes different areas, but it was not the 'preserve' of just one nation).

You can carry on elevating the German WW2 effort way beyond it's true place if you like, obviously no sense of proportion is going to trouble your ideas.
I suppose if you were 'into' ancient Rome you might be making similar types of claims about their impact on todays world too.....with a little justification.


Anyhoo, I suggest you look for reaction from someone else in future; I'm not going to bother.

Like you said before, 'you win'. (
)
Enjoy your "glorious victory".





[edit on 8-6-2005 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Jun, 8 2005 @ 04:27 AM
link   
Forschung, from these posts you appear to have an agenda beyond what was being discussed. We began by arguing the merits of the Horten flying wings and now you are going off like a scatter gun as if trying to prove the Germans invented SOMETHING. Well its all very well you trying to bamboozle people into submission but there really seems to be no point to your claims. All the research and development that was going on is understood and accepted but what are you trying to prove?

There are several pertinent questions that have gone completely ignored by you on this thread but why sould this be? When you cut to the chase and get over trying to impress everyone answer these points.

1 German A bombs. If Germany had even one of these why didn't Hitler ordered it detonated in the face of the allied advance? It would have done what he was trying to do with the V-1, V-2 etc at a stroke and stopped Germany being overrun and kept the Nazi's in power. So if they had one why not use it?

2 German flying discs, if we accept the argument that you are not discussing annular wings but 'UFO type' flying discs, what use were they and where are they? Germany was completely overrrun by Russian, US and British forces and the German technical archive was plundered for all it was worth. In this scenario how likely is it that, having failed to keep the A-bomb from the Russians for even 5 years a revolutionary new way of flying that was so much better than winged aeroplanes was ignored or 'kept secret' for more than 60 years?

The A-bomb was so important that the US made massive attempts to keep it from Russia even to the point of denying access to it from the UK who co-developed it, yet Russia and now several other countries too have the thing. So, seeing as the 'flying disc' in itself is NOT a weapon but an advance in aviation, where are the flying discs?

You see, common sense has a way of unravelling B/S when it is applied in a straight forward manner.

[edit on 8-6-2005 by waynos]



posted on Jun, 8 2005 @ 11:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
Forschung, from these posts you appear to have an agenda beyond what was being discussed. We began by arguing the merits of the Horten flying wings and now you are going off like a scatter gun as if trying to prove the Germans invented SOMETHING. Well its all very well you trying to bamboozle people into submission but there really seems to be no point to your claims. All the research and development that was going on is understood and accepted but what are you trying to prove?

There are several pertinent questions that have gone completely ignored by you on this thread but why sould this be? When you cut to the chase and get over trying to impress everyone answer these points.

1 German A bombs. If Germany had even one of these why didn't Hitler ordered it detonated in the face of the allied advance? It would have done what he was trying to do with the V-1, V-2 etc at a stroke and stopped Germany being overrun and kept the Nazi's in power. So if they had one why not use it?

2 German flying discs, if we accept the argument that you are not discussing annular wings but 'UFO type' flying discs, what use were they and where are they? Germany was completely overrrun by Russian, US and British forces and the German technical archive was plundered for all it was worth. In this scenario how likely is it that, having failed to keep the A-bomb from the Russians for even 5 years a revolutionary new way of flying that was so much better than winged aeroplanes was ignored or 'kept secret' for more than 60 years?

The A-bomb was so important that the US made massive attempts to keep it from Russia even to the point of denying access to it from the UK who co-developed it, yet Russia and now several other countries too have the thing. So, seeing as the 'flying disc' in itself is NOT a weapon but an advance in aviation, where are the flying discs?

You see, common sense has a way of unravelling B/S when it is applied in a straight forward manner.

[edit on 8-6-2005 by waynos]


Waynos, There is no "unraveling" at all. Yes, since coming upon this thread, my agenda is to confront all those minimalists regarding German science who think it is so learned and bright to say support the position that we know everything that happened, technically speaking, during WW2, and to minimize all aspects of German achievement----Whether You or anyone else likes it or not----bring it on. Also, I was responding to other who challenged me, as you are doing, on this information, without ever bothering to look at the references or facts.

1. Your point being (paraphrasing) "Why didn't they detonate an atomic. bomb?" In his new book, Joseph Farrell, The Reich of the Black Sun, states that an atomic weapon or other unknown weapon of mass destruction was tested on the Eastern Front. The larger answer to your question has been dealt with, extensively, by Friedrich Georg (three books) and Thomas Mehner. Let me try to wrap it up in a sentence or two. By the time the bomb was ready, Germany was under too much pressure to put together the bomb and a delivery system. Their goal was not Britain, but the USA in terms of large nukes. They had several delivery sytems in development from the exotic to the mundane (as did Japan). Some exotics were tested. But we are talking March, 1945 now and nothing is working in Germany. One big exception were some tactical plutonium weapons which were designed to be carried by Me 109s, of all things. A shipment of these weapons was made to Austria in the closing stages of the war, to the squadron, set aside for this purpose. Upon arrival, some sargent decided the paperwork was all wrong and the shipment diverted OR betrayal was involved with this individual, knowbody knows for sure. This incident was the closest the Germans came to delivering the bomb that I know of. The disposition of these weapons is unknown. This account is found in Friedrich Georg's Siegerswaffen (first book). By the way, the Germans did talk of atomic weapons the size of a pinapple or pumpkin and so some suspect they knew how to make mini-nukes as they are thought of today. I have seen no evidence that they actually made these, though.

2. Flying Discs. Most German flying discs were aerodynamic, not field propulsion. You want to know more about the method of flight? Imagine a swept wing which shrugs off laminar flow by swept shape and rotation. The result is much less drag. In addition, the Germans experimented with suction wings and apparently this was a part of one of Miethe's designs. Each disc type had its own particular type of wing. For instance, the Miethe designs used an internally rotating engine while the outer skin remained stationary. This was the radial jet we talked about. Habermohl and Schriever used a cowled fan, similar to a gyrocopter with a jet engine pushing or spinning the blade as it was somewhat adjustable. The Habermohl craft flew according to all accounts as well as pictures. The Foo Fighter was a robot design just as Renato Vesco claimed, using a radial jet engine. Schauberger's system is the subject of much conjecture but it was not completely aerodynamic. The field propulsion engines are also the subject of conjecture but they might have been Tesla engines (high voltage, alternating current, pancake Tesla coils as William Lynn states in his books or a Karl Schappeller-type engine or even the "Glocke" engine described in Nick Cook's book. I don't know yet. Again, if you doubt me, check the sources yourself.

I really don't understand your last paragraph. The Americans, British and Soviets all had many teams in Germany gathering this information. Joseph Andreas Epp actually went over to the Soviets and worked on a Soviet saucer for use in the Arctic. Later, he defected to the West, was imprisoned in West Germany and interrogated by all our intellegence services, including the FBI who had no jurisdiction over him. Epp redrew teh Soviet saucer from his memory for the FBI. Those intelligence files became part of Epp's Paperclip file. (note
aperclip was anything from scientists recruited to a wish list). This file has been obtained, by me, under Appeal from the Department of Justice after a year of work. Most of this file was reproduced and discussed by the late Heiner Gehring in two or three of his books in German language (see Kopp Verlag, Amun Verlag web-sites).

Waynos, Renato Vesco coined something called the "Vesco Prinicpal" and this may be the reason for your confusion. The Vesco Principal states that if all the former Allied Powers, or at least two, had a particular technology (the V-2 for instance) then and only then the information, knowledge, acknowlegement, etc. was made public. But if only one Allied Power got the information, then it was kept secret and may even remain secret to this day. A great example is the Hans Coler devices (use "Hans Coler" as a search words as this one is on the internet). The British got Coler and nobody else apparently ever asked them about him. Coler worked in Germany for the British and rebuilt one of his free energy devices---it worked!! This dumbfounded the British who were dealing in the Second Law of Thermodynamics and couldn't see past it to aether energy even though Coler explained it all to them. That was 1946. The British classified the file, the British Intelligence Objectives Sub-Committee report on Hans Coler until 1978, after the first energy crisis. The Americans and Soviets had no clue.

Waynos, you have jumped on this denial, minimization bandwagon, thinking it was "smart" and you have used the word "B/S" and implied I have no common sense. Now, you check the sources as I challenged SmikeyPinkey and Rogue 1 to do, but which they didn't do, and if you still think this is all B/S, you give me specific questions--not platitudes or opinions. By the way, check with Rogue 1 who as admitted owning "The Reich of the Black Sun" by Joseph Farrell for verification.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join