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: 5
0
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 9 2005 @ 02:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Forschung
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.


Sure I've read it a few times actually. However the book seemed like more of a fiction story than actual fact. The evidence is at the very least circumstantial. It does make for a good story.

I have read hundreds of books on Germany in WWII especially the estern front. That is why i find your claims so hard to believe. Hell, I almost woih the Germans had beaten the SOviets.

I think much of this revisionist history by German's is try and prove to the world that Germany could have won the war if given another year.




posted on Jun, 9 2005 @ 05:28 AM
link   
Forschung, you have given me a very detailed reply there and obviously put a lot of thought into it, first though I will deal with a part of your reply that has irritated me. I have not jumped on any 'bandwagon ' as you put it, I am posting from my own point of view, neither have I ever said anything insulting about you, whether name calling (as you accused me of in an earlier post) or saying you have no common sense. Please try to enter into the spirit of the debate without taking the fact that I am not convinced as a personal insult.

You have misunderstood my only two questions (which were, and are, direct but remain unanswered.

If these books you put forward are as in depth and all ecompassing as you say then the answers will be contained within.

You explained at length how Germany wanted to drop an A-bomb on America and how it lacked the delivery system to do this, however both those fatcs are understood and accepted, they are undeniably true. The question though is how close to a working weapon Germany came. My view is that Germany was close, maybe only a few months, away from a working bomb. You however firmly believe that they already had at least one working bomb, possibly more, this is where my question arises and I will try to clarify it. with allied armies advancing on Germany rapidly and an increasingly desperate situation evolving, Hitler and his cronies would be perfectly aware of the consequences of losing, why not simply detonate a bomb on the allied advance? No fancy long range bomber was required, a He 111 could have carried one to behind the front lines or better still, detonate one on the ground by remote control right in front of the advancing forces. Now this is real desperation tactics but that is the situation Germany was in, the Nazi's were fighting for survival and they had the means (supposedly) right in their hands. Given this I cannot imagine that Hitler would simply kill himself without using this weapon to at least take as many hated enemies with him, after all he was always looking for the ultimate weapon that would change the tide of the war, at whatever late stage. For this reason alone it appears unlikely that Germany had actually got as far as owning a working device. Is that scenario explained at all? I ask of course because you have read up where I haven't so no more 'go read the book' answers please. If you have the answer just tell me, thats what we all do on these boards. If you don't have a documented answer you could just give your opinion.

The second question was clear enough and I stand by it.


However you raise more questions; What credibility does the renato vesco principle hold? Given that he was 14 when the war started I would say none at all, he has no first hand knowledge to give dredence to this principle (fuerball/ foo fighter fantasies) it is merely a term he coined to make the flying disc scenario explainable, a peg upon which to hang his theory. Anyone else could do the same. Given that he was merely an aeronautical engineer with an interest in flying saucers (as a device of purely terrestrial origin) why should I take what he says as gospel truth? Why do you?

Vesco describes 'foo fighter' type craft as being remote controlled by gound operators. How was this acheived in 1945? Intercepting enemy bombers, in the dark, following individual aircraft over considerable distances? It stretches credibility to its extreme given the primitive nature of radar and the short distances over which remote control was feasible in those days.

In his books vesco also talks about the 'kugelblitz' as a form of flying disc, which is odd as in 1945 the kugelblitz was a development of the Panzer tank!

If vesco is such an expert why did he make this simple error? In fact why is the biog that goes with hjis books totally false?


"Renato Vesco is a fully licensed aircraft engineer and a specialist in aerospace and ramjet developments. He attended the University of Rome and, before WWII, studied at the German Institute for Aerial Development. During the war, Vesco worked with the Germans at the Fiat Lake Garda secret installations in Italy. In the 1960s, he worked for the Italian Air Ministry of Defense as an undercover technical agent, investigating the UFO mystery."


Like I said, false. For example, did people really study at the German Institute for Aerial Development before the age of 14? Did this teenage lad really work at secret German installations during the war? What did he do, make the tea or sweep the floor?

Now, extending the argument can you tell me how come not one single report of German flying saucers can be dated to before flying saucers themselves became an almost obsessive subject in the mid '50's following on from the Ken Arnold reports? There is not one solitary contemporary wartime report on flying discs. Everything we have was authored in the following decades. You might not find this odd but seeing as there is contemporary documented evidence for everything else, including the German A-bomb work, forgive me if I do. Its not about denying German tech (for what purpose I wonder?) Its about common sense, and evidence.

BTW, an 'aerodynamic flying disc' IS an annular wing, however you dress it up. The stories about German flying discs are just that, stories.

What of the credentials of the designers?

There is nothing to place Klaus Habermohl anywhere except for his work on the radial flow jet engine in the 1930's, no evidence at all of his working on flying discs, ever. Except of course for claims in a book.

Interestingly, searching for Flugkapitan Schriever shows him to have been working for the Americans in 1950, delivering copies of the newspaper 'stars and Stripes' to army bases in Germany, I kid you not. So if he really was the creator of a working and revolutionary flying disc what was he doing working as a lorry driver?

Miethe, is a real enigma and after some research I am left wondering whether he reaslly existed at all. Let me explain, on the one hand you have the Dr Miethe who was recruited by paperclip etc etc and on the other hand their seems to be a separate Dr Meithe who fled to Addis Ababa and then on to Cairo who had nothing to do with paperclip, very odd. Could there be two Dr Meithe's building flying discs in Germany in 1945? I don't think so so how about another tack, Meithe was supposedly a contemporary and colleague of Werner Von Braun, they are supposed to have worked together in 1933, so I looked at von Braun and his own colleages and contemporaries. Guess what, there is not one mention of Meithe (or any of the other disc builders in this thread) in any reference I have seen that is concerned with von Braun, many other prominent designers and scientists are referred to but not these guys. There is a book entitled 'The Rocket and the Reich' by Michael J Neufeld which describes the development of secret weqapons at length, and yet there is no mention of these guys or their 'work' at all. Neufeld is German too by the way, why would he deliberately deny or downplay this exceptional work - if it ever really happened that is.

You might think that these people never existed or that, if they did, they played no part in the development of any German flying disc. And if none of them made a flying disc (or two, or several, or whatever) then it is highly unlikely that anyone ever did at all.

I did a web search on other things that keep getting mentioned here, like 'vril'and 'haunebu' etc to get a bit of a flavour and I was astonished to turn up this statement from one of the leading proponents of these two craft Vladimir Terziski


The Germans landed on the Moon as early as probably 1942, utilizing their larger exoatmospheric rocket saucers of the Miethe and Schriever type. The Miethe rocket craft was built in diameters of 15 and 50 meters, and the Schriever Walter turbine powered craft was designed as an interplanetary exploration vehicle. It had a diameter of 60 meters, had 10 stories of crew compartments, and stood 45 meters high.


Well I'm sorry but with credibility self destructed to that degree that is the end of the matter as far as I am concerned. Pure fiction, the lot of it.

PS Why is this page so damn wide? It makes for very difficult reading.



[edit on 9-6-2005 by waynos]



posted on Jun, 9 2005 @ 01:21 PM
link   
This is starting to get funny.

I have read umteen books about umteen of these 'secret German weapons', some reputable but a whole host of them with very very low credibility (single sourcing and cross-sourcing with other low-credibility sources) and as Rogue 1 says many are little more than a work of outlandish claim, more fiction and desire to believe, than genuine fact.

There's a, now thankfully shrinking, entire industry devoted to this, IMO, grossly overdone obsession about WW2 Germany technology (and the entire nazi era)......

.....all basically feeding the star-struck fan-club who in turn are falling over themselves to avoid the point at all costs that if they really were so singularly advanced as is claimed how come they lost, and lost so utterly?

Excepting, of course, those ultra secret bases at the south pole and on the moon!


(and all, naturally, claiming to be only 'interested' in the science and none of the rest of what that crowd were really all about.
No obsessional hero worship or unhealthy devotion going on there at all, no sireee!
)

However, thankfully it's all 60yrs ago and moving further and further away with each passing moment, it's all very old and rather done to death IMO.

Given the sheer weight of published material how anyone can attempt to claim with any credibility that it has been down-played, covered-up or denied is completely beyond me.

Anyone interested in yet another site that has failed to get the message to cover-up, down-play or deny German WW2 technology - in this case the rocket technology - might care to look here at this reputable source (an excellent resource fo everything to do with rockets, missiles and space flight and aeronautics generally -
www.astronautix.com...

(......and yes, what happened to the page?)

[edit on 9-6-2005 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Jun, 10 2005 @ 04:28 AM
link   
As an aside Sminkeypinkey, have you read The Hunt For Zero Point by Nick Cook ?
If so what are your thoughts on the ' Shauberger Implosion Engine ' and the device he refers to as ' The Bell ' ?



posted on Jun, 10 2005 @ 05:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Forschung
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.


Thank you! This is what I was looking for. I was asking if some of the commonallities between the two aircraft could be explained by the fact that the Northrop engineers and scientist might have Used the Horton 9 as a starting point for a few of their ideas, such as where to put the exhaust ducts or the recessed intakes.

Thank you Forschung for addressing the question, instead of trying to give me a history of the Flying Wing (which I've been studying on my own since 1992))



posted on Jun, 10 2005 @ 08:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1
As an aside Sminkeypinkey, have you read The Hunt For Zero Point by Nick Cook ?


- No, I haven't read that one.
I have read of it though.
It appears there are the usual questions that arise where the physics are concerned.


If so what are your thoughts on the ' Shauberger Implosion Engine ' and the device he refers to as ' The Bell ' ?


- I've heard of this.

Again it seems that the physics get all hazy.

There would appear to be enough to go on for the labs around the world today (and from time to time claims are made about these 'cells') but nothing anyone seems to be able to repeat in a standard open scientific test.

I am not writing it all off and calling it total rubbish, I'm just maintaining a scepticism until I see something that meets any reasonable standard of credible proof.

.......and I'm afraid I find way too much of the 'UFO world' (where sadly so much of this type of thing seem so reside) far to heavy on claim and assertion and way too light of substantive fact.



posted on Jun, 10 2005 @ 09:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by ghost
I was asking if some of the commonallities between the two aircraft could be explained by the fact that the Northrop engineers and scientist might have Used the Horton 9 as a starting point for a few of their ideas, such as where to put the exhaust ducts or the recessed intakes.


- I'd say it makes about as much of a 'linkage' between B2 and Ho 9 as if they'd ever looked at, studied or visited the earlier Northrop flying wing aircraft.

Looking at an old plane in a museum is hardly a detailed study of it, right?

Beyond a superficially similar shape (even though it isn't particularly similar in detail) what other features strike you as a 'starting point' or "commonality" anyway?

Even RAM was being used decades before any such visit (if indeed it ever happened......or extended beyond a curious and cursory inspection).

......and simply mounting the engine within the wing - at the root - (with a clearly exposed intake and exhaust) bears absolutely no relation to the instalation used in the B2.

I take it you have seen the pictures of what still exists of the Ho9?
A tubular steel centre section with engines and the detached outer wing panels rotting to one side.

Please feel free to let me know how this is common to the B2 on anything other than the most superficial level.
Seriously, if you've been studying flying wings for as long as you say I'd be interested in hearing say 10 points in which they have any serious similarity.



posted on Jun, 11 2005 @ 10:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1

Originally posted by Forschung
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.


Sure I've read it a few times actually. However the book seemed like more of a fiction story than actual fact. The evidence is at the very least circumstantial. It does make for a good story.

I have read hundreds of books on Germany in WWII especially the estern front. That is why i find your claims so hard to believe. Hell, I almost woih the Germans had beaten the SOviets.

I think much of this revisionist history by German's is try and prove to the world that Germany could have won the war if given another year.


OK, Rogue1, now we are getting somewhere. What parts did you find "fiction" rather than "fact" and why? Maybe we can have a decent discussion after all.

I haven't said anything about when the war would be over if this or that had happened. This is all friction and beyond what I want to discuss.



posted on Jun, 11 2005 @ 11:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
Forschung, you have given me a very detailed reply there and obviously put a lot of thought into it, first though I will deal with a part of your reply that has irritated me. I have not jumped on any 'bandwagon ' as you put it, I am posting from my own point of view, neither have I ever said anything insulting about you, whether name calling (as you accused me of in an earlier post) or saying you have no common sense. Please try to enter into the spirit of the debate without taking the fact that I am not convinced as a personal insult.

You have misunderstood my only two questions (which were, and are, direct but remain unanswered.

If these books you put forward are as in depth and all ecompassing as you say then the answers will be contained within.

You explained at length how Germany wanted to drop an A-bomb on America and how it lacked the delivery system to do this, however both those fatcs are understood and accepted, they are undeniably true. The question though is how close to a working weapon Germany came. My view is that Germany was close, maybe only a few months, away from a working bomb. You however firmly believe that they already had at least one working bomb, possibly more, this is where my question arises and I will try to clarify it. with allied armies advancing on Germany rapidly and an increasingly desperate situation evolving, Hitler and his cronies would be perfectly aware of the consequences of losing, why not simply detonate a bomb on the allied advance? No fancy long range bomber was required, a He 111 could have carried one to behind the front lines or better still, detonate one on the ground by remote control right in front of the advancing forces. Now this is real desperation tactics but that is the situation Germany was in, the Nazi's were fighting for survival and they had the means (supposedly) right in their hands. Given this I cannot imagine that Hitler would simply kill himself without using this weapon to at least take as many hated enemies with him, after all he was always looking for the ultimate weapon that would change the tide of the war, at whatever late stage. For this reason alone it appears unlikely that Germany had actually got as far as owning a working device. Is that scenario explained at all? I ask of course because you have read up where I haven't so no more 'go read the book' answers please. If you have the answer just tell me, thats what we all do on these boards. If you don't have a documented answer you could just give your opinion.

The second question was clear enough and I stand by it.


However you raise more questions; What credibility does the renato vesco principle hold? Given that he was 14 when the war started I would say none at all, he has no first hand knowledge to give dredence to this principle (fuerball/ foo fighter fantasies) it is merely a term he coined to make the flying disc scenario explainable, a peg upon which to hang his theory. Anyone else could do the same. Given that he was merely an aeronautical engineer with an interest in flying saucers (as a device of purely terrestrial origin) why should I take what he says as gospel truth? Why do you?

Vesco describes 'foo fighter' type craft as being remote controlled by gound operators. How was this acheived in 1945? Intercepting enemy bombers, in the dark, following individual aircraft over considerable distances? It stretches credibility to its extreme given the primitive nature of radar and the short distances over which remote control was feasible in those days.

In his books vesco also talks about the 'kugelblitz' as a form of flying disc, which is odd as in 1945 the kugelblitz was a development of the Panzer tank!

If vesco is such an expert why did he make this simple error? In fact why is the biog that goes with hjis books totally false?


"Renato Vesco is a fully licensed aircraft engineer and a specialist in aerospace and ramjet developments. He attended the University of Rome and, before WWII, studied at the German Institute for Aerial Development. During the war, Vesco worked with the Germans at the Fiat Lake Garda secret installations in Italy. In the 1960s, he worked for the Italian Air Ministry of Defense as an undercover technical agent, investigating the UFO mystery."


Like I said, false. For example, did people really study at the German Institute for Aerial Development before the age of 14? Did this teenage lad really work at secret German installations during the war? What did he do, make the tea or sweep the floor?

Now, extending the argument can you tell me how come not one single report of German flying saucers can be dated to before flying saucers themselves became an almost obsessive subject in the mid '50's following on from the Ken Arnold reports? There is not one solitary contemporary wartime report on flying discs. Everything we have was authored in the following decades. You might not find this odd but seeing as there is contemporary documented evidence for everything else, including the German A-bomb work, forgive me if I do. Its not about denying German tech (for what purpose I wonder?) Its about common sense, and evidence.

BTW, an 'aerodynamic flying disc' IS an annular wing, however you dress it up. The stories about German flying discs are just that, stories.

What of the credentials of the designers?

There is nothing to place Klaus Habermohl anywhere except for his work on the radial flow jet engine in the 1930's, no evidence at all of his working on flying discs, ever. Except of course for claims in a book.

Interestingly, searching for Flugkapitan Schriever shows him to have been working for the Americans in 1950, delivering copies of the newspaper 'stars and Stripes' to army bases in Germany, I kid you not. So if he really was the creator of a working and revolutionary flying disc what was he doing working as a lorry driver?

Miethe, is a real enigma and after some research I am left wondering whether he reaslly existed at all. Let me explain, on the one hand you have the Dr Miethe who was recruited by paperclip etc etc and on the other hand their seems to be a separate Dr Meithe who fled to Addis Ababa and then on to Cairo who had nothing to do with paperclip, very odd. Could there be two Dr Meithe's building flying discs in Germany in 1945? I don't think so so how about another tack, Meithe was supposedly a contemporary and colleague of Werner Von Braun, they are supposed to have worked together in 1933, so I looked at von Braun and his own colleages and contemporaries. Guess what, there is not one mention of Meithe (or any of the other disc builders in this thread) in any reference I have seen that is concerned with von Braun, many other prominent designers and scientists are referred to but not these guys. There is a book entitled 'The Rocket and the Reich' by Michael J Neufeld which describes the development of secret weqapons at length, and yet there is no mention of these guys or their 'work' at all. Neufeld is German too by the way, why would he deliberately deny or downplay this exceptional work - if it ever really happened that is.

You might think that these people never existed or that, if they did, they played no part in the development of any German flying disc. And if none of them made a flying disc (or two, or several, or whatever) then it is highly unlikely that anyone ever did at all.

I did a web search on other things that keep getting mentioned here, like 'vril'and 'haunebu' etc to get a bit of a flavour and I was astonished to turn up this statement from one of the leading proponents of these two craft Vladimir Terziski


The Germans landed on the Moon as early as probably 1942, utilizing their larger exoatmospheric rocket saucers of the Miethe and Schriever type. The Miethe rocket craft was built in diameters of 15 and 50 meters, and the Schriever Walter turbine powered craft was designed as an interplanetary exploration vehicle. It had a diameter of 60 meters, had 10 stories of crew compartments, and stood 45 meters high.


Well I'm sorry but with credibility self destructed to that degree that is the end of the matter as far as I am concerned. Pure fiction, the lot of it.

PS Why is this page so damn wide? It makes for very difficult reading.



[edit on 9-6-2005 by waynos]


Waynos,

1. Why didn't Hitler use the bomb? First of all, neither I nor anybody I know has all the anwers. I will respond by combining several points from several people and inject my own opinion.

Hitler had an atomic weapon in a test form such as Trinity. Of this there is little doubt among the people who have looked into this at some length. But Trinity wasn't a bomb which could be dropped. Likewise, the Germans needed a deliverable bomb which they were building. As far as I know, only two sites were involved for large bombs. One, in Jonastal, at a facility near the town of Ohrdruf which I mentioned. This was a uranium bomb. One or two examples were recovered by the Americans. This bomb probably wasn't quite ready for deployment. The other was a plutonium bomb developed in Austria, near Vienna, by a totally different group of people. Even less is known about this bomb or its eventual disposition but it is believed to have fallen into the hands of the Americans, for some reason. This bomb EVIDENTLY wasn't ready either.

The smaller plutonium bombs I mentioned with were to be delivered by Me-109 WAS ready and shipped by rail to be deployed. But they were not deployed. In fact, according to Friedrich Georg, they were lost in shipment, or diverted or a traitor was involved. Nobody knows for sure right now.

As to Hilter himself, I will give you some thoughts of one of these researchers. Almost each day in the war has a new set of characters coming in and out, shifting alliances, assassinations (Heydrich), etc. In the end, Hitler had everyone either arrested or shot or on orders to be arrested or shot in the Nazi leadership. Why? Thomas Mehner & Edgar Mayer "Die Atombombe und das Dritte Reich" says that in the end there were Nazi realists. They realized that they could not win the war. All that could be done would be a deal. By this time, real power was in the hands of the SS, Himmler, Pohl, Kammler. Himmler dealt in grand ideas. Pohl was a policeman. Kammler was a doctor of engineering and had in his hands the entire high-tech weapons systems, technology and development. In this he was assisted by the man he replaced, Albert Speer. The two were friends inspite of the "replacement" situation. According to Mayer, et al., Hitler met with the remaining Nazi bigwigs in the latter days of March or April of 1945 to discuss your question--deployment of atomic weaponry. Besides your suggestion, Waynos, the queston of a dirty bomb undoubtedly came up. But, what was happening in the "backstory" was that all these people where trying to do a deal with the Allies. In fact, some of them, including Speer and Kammler had something going called "Projekt Avalon", the King Arthur analogy. This was a 4th Reich plan to replace Hitler but still have a Nazi government and from this position to do a deal with the Allies. According to Mayer and Mehner, they had stationary and stamps all made up in the name of the 4th Reich, Nazi aber ohne Hitler, Nazi but without Hitler. Well, at the big meeting, Hitler went on about deployment of superweapons to silence. Finally, Speer stood up and simply told Hitler "Nein". He sat down with the obvious approval of all assembled. Hitler considered this betrayal. Incidently, betrayal is a huge theme in German history according to one train of thought so it all made sense to Hitler, internally. At this point, Hitler stood up, left, went back to the Bunker and cancelled plans to move command to the new Fuehrer Headquarters at a new facility in the Jonas Valley, Thuringia, which was all prepared and waiting for him. In other words, it was this day Hitler decided to stay in Berlin and shoot himself in the bunker.

You must also realized that at this date, almost nothing was moving by rail in Germany. Kammler had some large transport aircraft, referred to as "trucks" which he refused to share with anybody, including Himmler to whom he actually refused a request.

So, my OPINION is, because of poor communications, decision making counter-agendas if not actual betrayal, poor transportation, weapons unavailabilty, and the belief that strategic weaponry, not tactical weaponry was the way to save Germany, these weapons were not employed. My opinion is not fact and doesn't even come near the factual findings concerning the actual technology.

2. Waynos, I have forgotten what your second question was and can't go back right now since I am already here posting. Can you please ask it again?

3. Vesco: Well, he says he was an engineer, working for the Italians in collaboration with the Germans, actually with Fiat, working at Lake Garda. If you know he was 14 at the time, please tell me how you know this? For some reason, immediately after the war, the British gave him access to the British Intelligence Ojectives Sub-Committee files--the public and secret sets.

In fact, everything Vesco has ever mentioned has come true as far as I can remember, except the Kugelblitz, for which we as of yet have no confirmation. I would like to make you aware that there was another class of German anti-aircraft weapons called "Drehfluegel" (Dreh referrs to spinning or torque, Fluegel means wings). For Drehfluegel, an even more detailed source is necessary: "Das Geheimnis der deutschen Flugscheiben" by Klaus-Pert Rothkugel, 2002, VDM Heinz Nickel, Zweibruecken, (www.VDMedien.de) Rothkugel traces the evolution of Drehfluegel to an Italian origin and likes it to early work on explosive gels, perfected later by Dr. Hans Friedreich Gold. It is my OPINION that the Drehfluegel and the Kugelblitz are somehow related but I don't know how at this point.

I don't have any idea why you raise radio-control as an issue for the foo fighter. Nobody else ever has. The Germans used radio control for many, many missiles, even large ones. The US Army AirForce never questioned German ability to radio control these devices in their many reports on German foo fighters, in fact they so stated that they were radio controlled from the ground. I think Farrell cites and reproduces this material in his Reich of the Black Sun book which Rogue 1 can verify for you. If not, I can cite Combined Objectives Intelligence Sub-Committee files if you are into such documentation.

I really don't know what you mean by Foo Fighters being develped from a Panzer (tank). There was a "Kugelblitz" tank-like anti-aircraft gun. The Germans used the same code-names or designations many times for different weapons to confuse spys. Some say they even re-issued sunk U-boat numbers to new U-boats to confuse things. Actually, I think there were three Kugelblitz projects. A UFO researcher, William Moore, raised this as an issue one time so someone got to work on it (and him).

I am going to post this now and return to your comments on another post.



posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 09:59 AM
link   
Thank you for that lengthy reply, it made for intersting reading.

Your account (and your opinion as you pointed out) of the meetings between the highest ranking Nazi officials and Hitler and the question of deploying the atomic bomb is extremely plausible, in fact I am sure I have seen on TV or read somewhere an almost identical account except, I believe (and I am trying to remember here so I can't be too specific), that the account ended by saying that Hitlers demands were futile as the bomb was not yet ready to be used even if it was agreeable to the rst of them.

I know that is no more 'proof' than as if I just made it up but I am saying how that account co-incides with one I was familiar with before.

The question of just how ready the bomb was then remains open I think.

I am also curious how any sort of nuclear device might be carried by a Bf 109? As far as I am aware there is no modern nuclear weapon that could be carried by this aircraft so I remain highly sceptical of that one. I know modern small combat aircraft can carry nuclear weapons but you have to consider it in the context that the payload of a Harrier is equal to that of an early B-17 while even the Hawk trainer can carry a greater weight of bombs than a He 111. The payload of the Bf 109 would therefore be very small indeed.


The second question I had related to the likleyhood of flying disc technology remaining top secret for over 60 myears when that particular tech in itself does not constitute a weapon, but merely a development in aviation, especially given that top secret technology that DID relate to weaponry was public knowledge within one or, at most, two decades after the end of the war.

The phenomenal amounts of money spent on conventional winged aircraft in the subsequent decades also makes no sense if the possession of flying disc technology were found to be real. In my view of course.

regarding vesco, the reason I stated that he was about 14 when the war began was because I searched several online sources and discovered his date of birth was, well here's a quote lifted from ne of them;


Renato Vesco was born in Arona, Italy, in 1924. A licensed pilot, in 1944 he commanded the technical section of the Italian Air Force.


If this is utterly wrong then fair enough, however if correct it does call into question some of the claims he made about his pre-war and wartime activity, and if that is false then what else might he be fibbing about is how I am forced to take it.

In the next paragraph you mention the Drehfluegel, can I ask if this is related to the Traubflugel, or something entirely different? The description you gave seems to suggest it is similar if not the same, unless I have misinterpreted you.

Actually I don't completely deny the existence of such projects, only whether they were actually produced at all rather than just schemed.

regarding radio control. The German missiles were either gyroscopically stabilised and fired on a pre planned trajectory (V.1, V.2) or else the air lauched anti ship and anti aircraft missiles being used and developed at the time were often wire guided. In any case radio control , as used on the air launched V.1, Henschel Hs 293 and planned for the Arado E.377, was only suitable for use over short distances where the guiding operator could see the target. The idea of remotely piloted vehicles of any sort carrying out precise interceptions on specific aircraft beyond the visual range of the operator is frankly ludicrous, not the concept, just the actual acheivement of it in 1945.


Finally, you have misread what I posted, I never said anything about foo fighters being developed from a tank (WTF?
)

I merely commented on vesco using a name for his (I think imaginary) flying disk that was already in use for something else. You have answered this point and I cannot dispute what you say, though I do find it hard to swallow. Another case for more reading then.



posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 11:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
Thank you for that lengthy reply, it made for intersting reading.

Your account (and your opinion as you pointed out) of the meetings between the highest ranking Nazi officials and Hitler and the question of deploying the atomic bomb is extremely plausible, in fact I am sure I have seen on TV or read somewhere an almost identical account except, I believe (and I am trying to remember here so I can't be too specific), that the account ended by saying that Hitlers demands were futile as the bomb was not yet ready to be used even if it was agreeable to the rst of them.

I know that is no more 'proof' than as if I just made it up but I am saying how that account co-incides with one I was familiar with before.

The question of just how ready the bomb was then remains open I think.

I am also curious how any sort of nuclear device might be carried by a Bf 109? As far as I am aware there is no modern nuclear weapon that could be carried by this aircraft so I remain highly sceptical of that one. I know modern small combat aircraft can carry nuclear weapons but you have to consider it in the context that the payload of a Harrier is equal to that of an early B-17 while even the Hawk trainer can carry a greater weight of bombs than a He 111. The payload of the Bf 109 would therefore be very small indeed.


The second question I had related to the likleyhood of flying disc technology remaining top secret for over 60 myears when that particular tech in itself does not constitute a weapon, but merely a development in aviation, especially given that top secret technology that DID relate to weaponry was public knowledge within one or, at most, two decades after the end of the war.

The phenomenal amounts of money spent on conventional winged aircraft in the subsequent decades also makes no sense if the possession of flying disc technology were found to be real. In my view of course.

regarding vesco, the reason I stated that he was about 14 when the war began was because I searched several online sources and discovered his date of birth was, well here's a quote lifted from ne of them;


Renato Vesco was born in Arona, Italy, in 1924. A licensed pilot, in 1944 he commanded the technical section of the Italian Air Force.


If this is utterly wrong then fair enough, however if correct it does call into question some of the claims he made about his pre-war and wartime activity, and if that is false then what else might he be fibbing about is how I am forced to take it.

In the next paragraph you mention the Drehfluegel, can I ask if this is related to the Traubflugel, or something entirely different? The description you gave seems to suggest it is similar if not the same, unless I have misinterpreted you.

Actually I don't completely deny the existence of such projects, only whether they were actually produced at all rather than just schemed.

regarding radio control. The German missiles were either gyroscopically stabilised and fired on a pre planned trajectory (V.1, V.2) or else the air lauched anti ship and anti aircraft missiles being used and developed at the time were often wire guided. In any case radio control , as used on the air launched V.1, Henschel Hs 293 and planned for the Arado E.377, was only suitable for use over short distances where the guiding operator could see the target. The idea of remotely piloted vehicles of any sort carrying out precise interceptions on specific aircraft beyond the visual range of the operator is frankly ludicrous, not the concept, just the actual acheivement of it in 1945.


Finally, you have misread what I posted, I never said anything about foo fighters being developed from a tank (WTF?
)

I merely commented on vesco using a name for his (I think imaginary) flying disk that was already in use for something else. You have answered this point and I cannot dispute what you say, though I do find it hard to swallow. Another case for more reading then.



Waynos, I have moved back to the residence where my library is but, on the downside, this is dial-up and any lengthy responses are likely to get lost so I will try to keep this shorter and if needed post several replies.

All questions about how ready the bomb really was from being deployed are still open questions, as you say. In this type of research, nobody has all the answers and when someone says they do (occasionally someone like this comes up) they quickly find out that they don't.

The Bf 109: So strange nobody could make this up. Friedrich Georg (Hitlers Siegeswaffen Band 1: Luftwaffe und Marine Geheime Nuklearwaffen des Dritten Reiches und ihre Traegersysteme) (Hitlers Victory Weapons, Volume 1: Air Force and Marnie Secret Nuclearweapons of the Third Reich and their Delivery Systems), devotes pages 70-75 on this topic. He even has a color painting of the Messerschmitt with an atomic bomb hung under its belly for the cover of this book. In fact, Georg has a photograph of a Bf 109, identified as d-4 (Werknummer 330/75 der III/J651 at takeoff from Junkertroylhof in April, 1945. "Unter dem Rumpf traegt sie eine voellig unbekannte Bombe. Ist dies viellecht das ereste Foto von Hitlers "kleinen Uraniumbomben"? ( Under the fuselage it carries a completely unknown bomb. Is this perhaps the first photo of Hitlers "small urnaium bomb?) Foto: Sammlung Greihl. Reading the text, the bomb was in the 250 kg class, a total obliteration field of 16 km, the bomb cleared the gound by only 16 cm, the bomb was to be launched using a parachutte at 7000 meters. Georg discusses the choice of the Bf 109 and it seems to come down to availability of this aircraft and the fact that newer fighters were no better able to carry it as the Bf 109 came, from the get-go able to carry a 500 kg bomb load so a 250 kg load was fully within capacity (I am losely translating and summarizing). Georg also discusses the Ju 87 in this role but from the method of delivery, it is certain that the Stuka would have had no advantage since it was a dive bomber and this device had to be delivered with a parachutte in order for the pilot to avoid the blast.

In another part of the Siegeswaffen series, Georg discusses the use of a small plutonium bomb as a detonator for a hydrogen bomb. I mixed the two up and evidently this was a small uranium bomb. In regards to small bombs, the Germans were aware of minaturization technology whereby neutrons are reflected back into the chain reaction, the coating of the bomb is made more dense to hold back the expansion by some millionth of a second or "imploded" through conventional explosives holding in the nuclear expansion. All three methods can be done together so that a less-than-critical-mass amount of fissionable material is necessary. This is the technology of mini-nukes. Of course, they can go on and on getting more exotic, fission-fusion bombs, fusion-deuterium, red mercury-fusion-deuterium but I don't know how much the Germans knew at this time.

Why UFO tech is so - so secret. (next post)



posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 11:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by waynos
Thank you for that lengthy reply, it made for intersting reading.

Your account (and your opinion as you pointed out) of the meetings between the highest ranking Nazi officials and Hitler and the question of deploying the atomic bomb is extremely plausible, in fact I am sure I have seen on TV or read somewhere an almost identical account except, I believe (and I am trying to remember here so I can't be too specific), that the account ended by saying that Hitlers demands were futile as the bomb was not yet ready to be used even if it was agreeable to the rst of them.

I know that is no more 'proof' than as if I just made it up but I am saying how that account co-incides with one I was familiar with before.

The question of just how ready the bomb was then remains open I think.

I am also curious how any sort of nuclear device might be carried by a Bf 109? As far as I am aware there is no modern nuclear weapon that could be carried by this aircraft so I remain highly sceptical of that one. I know modern small combat aircraft can carry nuclear weapons but you have to consider it in the context that the payload of a Harrier is equal to that of an early B-17 while even the Hawk trainer can carry a greater weight of bombs than a He 111. The payload of the Bf 109 would therefore be very small indeed.


The second question I had related to the likleyhood of flying disc technology remaining top secret for over 60 myears when that particular tech in itself does not constitute a weapon, but merely a development in aviation, especially given that top secret technology that DID relate to weaponry was public knowledge within one or, at most, two decades after the end of the war.

The phenomenal amounts of money spent on conventional winged aircraft in the subsequent decades also makes no sense if the possession of flying disc technology were found to be real. In my view of course.

regarding vesco, the reason I stated that he was about 14 when the war began was because I searched several online sources and discovered his date of birth was, well here's a quote lifted from ne of them;


Renato Vesco was born in Arona, Italy, in 1924. A licensed pilot, in 1944 he commanded the technical section of the Italian Air Force.


If this is utterly wrong then fair enough, however if correct it does call into question some of the claims he made about his pre-war and wartime activity, and if that is false then what else might he be fibbing about is how I am forced to take it.

In the next paragraph you mention the Drehfluegel, can I ask if this is related to the Traubflugel, or something entirely different? The description you gave seems to suggest it is similar if not the same, unless I have misinterpreted you.

Actually I don't completely deny the existence of such projects, only whether they were actually produced at all rather than just schemed.

regarding radio control. The German missiles were either gyroscopically stabilised and fired on a pre planned trajectory (V.1, V.2) or else the air lauched anti ship and anti aircraft missiles being used and developed at the time were often wire guided. In any case radio control , as used on the air launched V.1, Henschel Hs 293 and planned for the Arado E.377, was only suitable for use over short distances where the guiding operator could see the target. The idea of remotely piloted vehicles of any sort carrying out precise interceptions on specific aircraft beyond the visual range of the operator is frankly ludicrous, not the concept, just the actual acheivement of it in 1945.


Finally, you have misread what I posted, I never said anything about foo fighters being developed from a tank (WTF?
)

I merely commented on vesco using a name for his (I think imaginary) flying disk that was already in use for something else. You have answered this point and I cannot dispute what you say, though I do find it hard to swallow. Another case for more reading then.



Why saucer tech is so secret. If I knew the answer to this and could prove it, I would win some sort of prize. All saucer technology is super-secret. This includes the A.V. Roe projects in Canada. It was like pulling teeth to get that from them and even then it was all a pack of lies. (Avro worked with US Airforce at Wright-Patterson which kept files on A.V. Roe). My opinion is that the US Airforce looked up in the 1950s and saw flying saucers. They knew full well that the only ones built to date were German models and didn't want to admit that or the fact that some Germans somewhere might be still building them---this regardless of performance of the craft involved. There is a whole genre in German language as well as Czech and Polish about the Drittes Macht (the 3rd Power). These are essentially German scientists working in South America, Antartica and some say Biber Damm, Beaver Dam, on the East Coast of Greenland. That is a whole other subject.

In addition to this the Germans did develop a field propulsion craft which actually flew. Nobody wants to talk about that if, following the Vesco Principle, only one or possibly two of the Allied Powers got it. Field propulsion opens up other technologies. Maybe the US authorities thought it best to let sleeping dogs lie. There is another point. Field propulsion involves two seperate things. One is boyancy the other is forward motion. A normal aircraft is also faced with both but a wing needs forward motion to allow for boyancy (lift) so we think of them together. For field propulsion, they are seperate. It could be that field propulsion is no faster than chemical methods in producing forward motion and that boyancy is incorporated into some existing exotic and secret aircraft and has been so for some time.

Vesco's age: I can live with your birthdate for Vesco. All I know is that he was an engineer and worked at Lake Garda when he says he did. I don't see anything in your time-line which would dispute this although he certainly wouldn't be a senior engineer.

Radio Control: I thought for years that all German long range rockets were designed with internal guidance. According to Thomas Mehner and Friedrich Georg, "Atomziel New York" (Atomic Target: New York) this is not true. They have recovered pictures of radio equipment they say was involved in linking the A-9/A-10 to a form of over the horizon Freya radar and gound communication. Evidently, internal guidance was not good enough at that time for trans-atlantic targeting. They mention several systems--all very boring to me. More exciting was a homing system to have been installed by spys on the Empire State Building in NYC. These may just be the spys caught by US authorities and executed, paving the legal way for Gitmo and all the "Patriot" Act legislation by which "enemy aliens" can be held without trial or put on trial by the military. The aforementioned writers go on from page 108 to page 141 on these various linkage systems.

But, this doesn't apply to foo fighters. Foo fighters didn't have much range or fight duration. They were "point of defense" weapons like the Me 162. They were guided visually and linked to the ground by radio. I have heard people state that they thought foo fighters might have been controlled from other aircraft and some who said they were controlled from a German saucer but I have not seen any proof for these statements.

This is another point. There are "sources" who will say almost anything. I don't use sources I don't trust. In an earlier post you mentioned Vladimir Terziski. I know Vladimir well. He has been instrumental in "discovering" Andreas Epp, for instance. But Vladimir and I disagree on many aspects of German saucer history and technology. For instance, I find no corroborating evidence for the "Vril" and "Haunebu" saucers. The pictures are great and have never been debunked but these specific saucers are only "documented" by Norbert-Juergen Ratthofer and Ralf Ettl. This is another long story and I don't want to get diverted. The point I am trying to make is that there are so many sources of bad information that one could easily document anything he wished using them. One basic trick in this type of research is to pick only good sources.

I don't remember any Traubfluegel, do you mean Triebfluegel, the three-winged ram-jet powered rotating wing interceptor-type aircraft? As far as I know, only a model was made which flew. At one time I thought a working prototype had been made but I changed my mind. I don't think this was a practical aircraft.



posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 12:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
This is starting to get funny.

I have read umteen books about umteen of these 'secret German weapons', some reputable but a whole host of them with very very low credibility (single sourcing and cross-sourcing with other low-credibility sources) and as Rogue 1 says many are little more than a work of outlandish claim, more fiction and desire to believe, than genuine fact.

There's a, now thankfully shrinking, entire industry devoted to this, IMO, grossly overdone obsession about WW2 Germany technology (and the entire nazi era)......

.....all basically feeding the star-struck fan-club who in turn are falling over themselves to avoid the point at all costs that if they really were so singularly advanced as is claimed how come they lost, and lost so utterly?

Excepting, of course, those ultra secret bases at the south pole and on the moon!


(and all, naturally, claiming to be only 'interested' in the science and none of the rest of what that crowd were really all about.
No obsessional hero worship or unhealthy devotion going on there at all, no sireee!
)

However, thankfully it's all 60yrs ago and moving further and further away with each passing moment, it's all very old and rather done to death IMO.

Given the sheer weight of published material how anyone can attempt to claim with any credibility that it has been down-played, covered-up or denied is completely beyond me.

Anyone interested in yet another site that has failed to get the message to cover-up, down-play or deny German WW2 technology - in this case the rocket technology - might care to look here at this reputable source (an excellent resource fo everything to do with rockets, missiles and space flight and aeronautics generally -
www.astronautix.com...

(......and yes, what happened to the page?)

[edit on 9-6-2005 by sminkeypinkey]


OK, SminkeyPinkey, this is what I am talking about. You completely accept "The Cold War Allied Legend" as Joseph Farrell calls it or as I call it stone-wall denial and minimization. How about a test? I will list some things always denied by the "authorities" and you tell me which of these is a part of your personal belief system:

1. A-10 rocket (a reality, not a paper project)
2. Just simple types of German saucers which actually flew--the Habemohl saucer for example.
3. Simple German "free-energy" devices, such as the Hans Coler devices.
4. Motorstoppmittel (means to stop engines) the weapon by which the Germans proposed to halt all ignition based engines within a certain radius.
5. German rail guns.


Tell me which you think are frauds and we can talk about them.



posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 12:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey

Originally posted by rogue1
As an aside Sminkeypinkey, have you read The Hunt For Zero Point by Nick Cook ?


- No, I haven't read that one.
I have read of it though.
It appears there are the usual questions that arise where the physics are concerned.


If so what are your thoughts on the ' Shauberger Implosion Engine ' and the device he refers to as ' The Bell ' ?


- I've heard of this.

Again it seems that the physics get all hazy.

There would appear to be enough to go on for the labs around the world today (and from time to time claims are made about these 'cells') but nothing anyone seems to be able to repeat in a standard open scientific test.

I am not writing it all off and calling it total rubbish, I'm just maintaining a scepticism until I see something that meets any reasonable standard of credible proof.

.......and I'm afraid I find way too much of the 'UFO world' (where sadly so much of this type of thing seem so reside) far to heavy on claim and assertion and way too light of substantive fact.


This is a hard question for conventional thinkers (no insult intended). The Schauberger devices appeared to work using water or air. The Bell operated using electronic components and apparently had little in common except for the fact that both were said to be vortex, implosion, or toroid devices. The reason this is difficult to see is that the commonality is on the form of aether physics or primary physics, not the secondary physics we know from school.

I am just a normal person and it took me six years to understand aether physics to the extent that I do so I certainly don't expect anyone to pick it up off a post but I will try to explain why this difference has occurred.

The German scientists invented Quantum Physics. This is energy relationships and was arrived at using classical scientific methods of emperical inquiry. In Quantum Physics theory is formed which fits what is observed. Relativity and other Einstein-related ideas came from a different route. They appeared first a theory. Since they appeared, three generations of scientists have concerned themselves with trying to prove Einstein right. This is assbackwards.

During the 1920s and 1930s, more than one "free-energy" device appeared in Germany and elsewhere. The Germans took this very seriously. These devices ran without a conventional energy source. Energy appeared to come from an unknown source. The Germans postualted no violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, they simply looked for the energy source. Guess what, they found it. Not only that, they found out how this energy works, what its characteristics are and took the first steps toward harnessing it. For this they didn't use or need Relativity. Meanwhile, the rest of the world and the world today is still hung up on realtivity. Using it, you will never, never solve these problems.

The traces of the energy employed by Schauberger are evidenced as we see them, by air and water just as a tornado or hurricane is a huge vortex system which we can only see because of the air and water in motion. But the Schauberger machines are not powered by air or water, they are powered with energy. The Germans went crazy after seeing the Schauberger machines, not because they wanted to make machines using air or water, they wanted to make machines using conventional electronic components of the day but they wanted to know the principle of the Schauberger devices in order to do that. The principle is the vortex. It is implosion, densification, re-radiation. This is how the Bell works. The link between Schauberger and the Bell is only in the mind, however. Both devices input aether energy which spirals in, that energy is compacted or breaked (Bremsstrahlen in German) and re-radiated as other forms of energy such as the electromagnetic spectrum.

Unfortunately, the nature of aether is another topic. There are simple references in English which I will gladly provide to anyone interested but this is something that comes all at once when it is understood and then you don't need a book any longer, you can write the book. It is ab all or nothing understanding.



posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 01:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Forschung
The principle is the vortex. It is implosion, densification, re-radiation. This is how the Bell works. The link between Schauberger and the Bell is only in the mind, however. Both devices input aether energy which spirals in, that energy is compacted or breaked (Bremsstrahlen in German) and re-radiated as other forms of energy such as the electromagnetic spectrum.


How did you come to this hypothesis ? There is almost no information on how the device worked except for one or two paragraphs in The Hunt For Zero Point.
How did the device dilate time ?



posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 08:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by Forschung
OK, SminkeyPinkey, this is what I am talking about. You completely accept "The Cold War Allied Legend" as Joseph Farrell calls it or as I call it stone-wall denial and minimization.


- *Ahem*
Joseph Farrell author of 'The Giza death star'!?
Wow, height of credibility there matey!

Maybe you can drag in Erich Von Daniken with something to say on this too, hmmm?


Actually I have provided several reputable links on German rocketry, synthetic fuels, computers...... and that German atomic bomb you seem so convinced existed.
(......and I note your passing swiftly along and saying nothing regarding my links about this latest out-break of nonsense showing the acedemic supposedly connected to this story has not actually made claims that Germany ever had or manufactured an A-bomb, no surprises there then, hmmm?)

This alternate idea of the German A-bomb is most hilarious.
(a tiny form no-one else could manage to perfect post WW2 - ie with the greatest national effort(s) and resources both financial and material in several of the world's richest countires (sometimes acting in cooperation) the like of which WW2 German science could only have dreamed of - for a few decades!

Most hilariously......dropped by an Me 109!
.....and all this supposition and "maybes" just because an unidentifed picture of an Me109 carrying an unusual 'store' on the centreline rack has, allegedly, turned up.
Wow, some 'evidence' and some 'proof'!

I hear the bottom being strenuously raked out of the bottom of barrels and the gullible being parted from their money by a new book!


I thank God none of you guys, so desparate to believe this stuff, work in the criminal justice system, the level of 'evidence' and 'proof' you guys require to prove something to your satisfaction is quite funny.......but I suspect it only really applies - for some reason - to WW2 German stuff, right?

The Me 109; possibly the most unsuitable heavy load carrying fighter in Germany's airforce.


If you want to tallk of what was ready "from the get go" to carry much heavier loads - faster, better armed and more survivably thanks to no liquid cooled engine - then a Focke Wulf FW190G (or F version) would have been far more suited as it could carry - from the get go - a 1800KG bomb!

A Ju87 Stuka would by early 1945 have been cut to pieces by almost anything allied it encountered.)

But, of course, this is absolute rubbish.
There was no German A-bomb, big or tiny.

Not one serious credible shred of evidence exists for it no matter how many "maybes", "mights" and "possibly" the authors - or you - use to cover a total lack of any serious evidence......as is typical with many of these 'theories'.


How about a test? I will list some things always denied by the "authorities" and you tell me which of these is a part of your personal belief system


- What for, you will simply deny any and all reputable sources and claim your obscure German books - or people like Farrell - prove all?

I have already demonstrated the ease with which information can be obtained freely on all these issues (without even bothering with the vast array of UFO-logy).

Hardly down-playing, covering up nor denying.....which was your original claim.

I might also say that there is a deeply suspicious side to all of this.
How come it has taken until 60yrs have gone by for all these German sources to come forward......and how come the eastern ones have waited so long until after the wall came down?

"Some very old guy said" on it's own is hardly much of a basis for establishing much is it, hmmm?


1. A-10 rocket (a reality, not a paper project)


- ......and yet (even if we go along with this fantasy) it took Von Braun et al almost 12yrs+ with the most lavish funding and material resources to design, create and perfect anything with staging and the range of the proposed A10.

I'd love to know who says the A10 was a tangible reality.......cos people like Von Braun certainly never did.
Can you show us an example of one completed, hmmm?

Of course not.


2. Just simple types of German saucers which actually flew--the Habemohl saucer for example.


- You enjoy the world of UFO-logy all you like, I have no interest in it at all.


3. Simple German "free-energy" devices, such as the Hans Coler devices.


- The day I see this stuff demonstrated on any sort of scale and in public by reputable and internationally accredited and respected physicists is the day I start thinking much about those quirky little ideas.

(oh and you'll also find the net full of stuff about it/them......again, no sign of the down-playing, denying or covering up going on there.)

.....failing that, I suggest you go out into the world and make a fortune, "free energy" (especially clean free energy is something the world is crying out for) you'd make millions!



4. Motorstoppmittel (means to stop engines) the weapon by which the Germans proposed to halt all ignition based engines within a certain radius.


- What is so advanced about this?
"Stop sand" to clog engines spread by a handgrenade!?

Another way conceived to fight the armor with hand grenades was the use of a Motorstopmittel ("engine stop agent"). A handgrenade was filled with fine powder - Stopsand - that was to be sucked into the tank's engine. It was obvious that the weapon would be useless if appropriate air intake filters were installed on the tanks.

www.geocities.com...


5. German rail guns.


- Everyone has been interested in railguns at one time or another.
Without super-conducting they are not feasible on any real scale (as the mag-lift train projects - once again using the best and latest knowledge and lavish materials and financial resourcing - all around the world post WW2 show very clearly.)


Tell me which you think are frauds and we can talk about them.


- There is a difference between a project genuinely looking at a topic back then and the wild claims that have been later made for such 'projects'.

Especially those claims made by those who have gotten very rich picking over the unusual and obscure from Germany back then.

The first has nothing to do with 'fraud', the second (like much of the 'amazing German secret weapons of WW2' industry stretches the truth so ludicrously that that does, IMO, become fraud.

Show an example of any German project 'covered up'. There isn't one.
There have been litterally hundreds (if not thousands) of books going on and on and on and on about this supposedly amazing and staggeringly advanced nazi tech - much of it in fact an interesting blend of old traditional skills and the - then - emergent new.
(Go look at a sectioned V2 or Me 262 etc to see what I mean, wooden parts sitting along side the - then- advanced electrical.)

The claims that this is all just a stone-wall cover-up flies in the face of reality.

The museums of the victorious allies are full of examples of WW2 German tech; there were - in the UK at least - exhibitions and travelling shows immeadiately post war showing what was captured, including the rockets and jets.
Why show off that 'advanced' stuff and hide others?

.......and if such a cover-up existed why would the USSR in particular (cos they must have been party to it too as they would have known all or most of the 'true story' thanks to what they captured) help hide this manipulative 'plot'?
Surely they would have been quick to expose the falsehood of western claims of 'freedom' and 'truth' to cause the western public to have no confidence in their obviously manipulative governments?

It makes no sense at all......and once again beyond the theorising there is not the slightest shred of evidence in support of it.

But you carry on believing what you want to believe.
Life's too short to be dwelling too long on the ridiculous wild claims and crumbling old relics of a deservedly failed poisonous ideology.


[edit on 13-6-2005 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 09:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Forschung
The B-2 had a German father.


- Given the history of Northrop this is a breath-taking and utterly ludicrous distortion of reality (......a deliberate one?).

The B2 had an American 'father' and 'mother', American 'brothers' and 'sisters' and American 'grandparents' and great-grandparents.

Northrop made a whole host of flying wings from small to huge multi-engined behemoths; way beyond anything the Hortens ever achieved.

To claim that all that was irrelevant and then base claims of a genuine 'linkage' to a claimed brief museum visit to have a look over the remains of the Ho9 is an insult to all the Northrop employees who worked on the various flying wing projects for decades (not forgetting those who still do).

In fact it is utterly absurd......and to promote ignorance - a denial of what this site is supposed to be all about.......

.....one can only wonder at the motives of those who find it so important to strenuously attempt to repeatedly deny the obvious plain truth and subvert it with this ridiculous fantasy.

(and my challenge remains; beyond the most superficial likeness of shape, being manned and using jets give me 10 pertinent and non-frivollous unique features the B2 and Ho9 share to illustrate this claimed 'father-hood')



[edit on 13-6-2005 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 09:41 AM
link   
Wow, perhaps the thread with the lengthiest posts, ever.

BTW : Forschung you're doing a great job. Keep up the good work



posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 11:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by rogue1

Originally posted by Forschung
The principle is the vortex. It is implosion, densification, re-radiation. This is how the Bell works. The link between Schauberger and the Bell is only in the mind, however. Both devices input aether energy which spirals in, that energy is compacted or breaked (Bremsstrahlen in German) and re-radiated as other forms of energy such as the electromagnetic spectrum.


How did you come to this hypothesis ? There is almost no information on how the device worked except for one or two paragraphs in The Hunt For Zero Point.
How did the device dilate time ?


"How did you come to this hypothesis?" --years of research. Nick Cook is a great guy and a gutsy guy to take the stand he has given the lofty position he is in, but Nick is probably unwilling to "let it all out" if he has a larger picture.



posted on Jun, 14 2005 @ 12:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey

Originally posted by Forschung
OK, SminkeyPinkey, this is what I am talking about. You completely accept "The Cold War Allied Legend" as Joseph Farrell calls it or as I call it stone-wall denial and minimization.


- *Ahem*
Joseph Farrell author of 'The Giza death star'!?
Wow, height of credibility there matey!

Maybe you can drag in Erich Von Daniken with something to say on this too, hmmm?


Actually I have provided several reputable links on German rocketry, synthetic fuels, computers...... and that German atomic bomb you seem so convinced existed.
(......and I note your passing swiftly along and saying nothing regarding my links about this latest out-break of nonsense showing the acedemic supposedly connected to this story has not actually made claims that Germany ever had or manufactured an A-bomb, no surprises there then, hmmm?)

This alternate idea of the German A-bomb is most hilarious.
(a tiny form no-one else could manage to perfect post WW2 - ie with the greatest national effort(s) and resources both financial and material in several of the world's richest countires (sometimes acting in cooperation) the like of which WW2 German science could only have dreamed of - for a few decades!

Most hilariously......dropped by an Me 109!
.....and all this supposition and "maybes" just because an unidentifed picture of an Me109 carrying an unusual 'store' on the centreline rack has, allegedly, turned up.
Wow, some 'evidence' and some 'proof'!

I hear the bottom being strenuously raked out of the bottom of barrels and the gullible being parted from their money by a new book!


I thank God none of you guys, so desparate to believe this stuff, work in the criminal justice system, the level of 'evidence' and 'proof' you guys require to prove something to your satisfaction is quite funny.......but I suspect it only really applies - for some reason - to WW2 German stuff, right?

The Me 109; possibly the most unsuitable heavy load carrying fighter in Germany's airforce.


If you want to tallk of what was ready "from the get go" to carry much heavier loads - faster, better armed and more survivably thanks to no liquid cooled engine - then a Focke Wulf FW190G (or F version) would have been far more suited as it could carry - from the get go - a 1800KG bomb!

A Ju87 Stuka would by early 1945 have been cut to pieces by almost anything allied it encountered.)

But, of course, this is absolute rubbish.
There was no German A-bomb, big or tiny.

Not one serious credible shred of evidence exists for it no matter how many "maybes", "mights" and "possibly" the authors - or you - use to cover a total lack of any serious evidence......as is typical with many of these 'theories'.


How about a test? I will list some things always denied by the "authorities" and you tell me which of these is a part of your personal belief system


- What for, you will simply deny any and all reputable sources and claim your obscure German books - or people like Farrell - prove all?

I have already demonstrated the ease with which information can be obtained freely on all these issues (without even bothering with the vast array of UFO-logy).

Hardly down-playing, covering up nor denying.....which was your original claim.

I might also say that there is a deeply suspicious side to all of this.
How come it has taken until 60yrs have gone by for all these German sources to come forward......and how come the eastern ones have waited so long until after the wall came down?

"Some very old guy said" on it's own is hardly much of a basis for establishing much is it, hmmm?


1. A-10 rocket (a reality, not a paper project)


- ......and yet (even if we go along with this fantasy) it took Von Braun et al almost 12yrs+ with the most lavish funding and material resources to design, create and perfect anything with staging and the range of the proposed A10.

I'd love to know who says the A10 was a tangible reality.......cos people like Von Braun certainly never did.
Can you show us an example of one completed, hmmm?

Of course not.


2. Just simple types of German saucers which actually flew--the Habemohl saucer for example.


- You enjoy the world of UFO-logy all you like, I have no interest in it at all.


3. Simple German "free-energy" devices, such as the Hans Coler devices.


- The day I see this stuff demonstrated on any sort of scale and in public by reputable and internationally accredited and respected physicists is the day I start thinking much about those quirky little ideas.

(oh and you'll also find the net full of stuff about it/them......again, no sign of the down-playing, denying or covering up going on there.)

.....failing that, I suggest you go out into the world and make a fortune, "free energy" (especially clean free energy is something the world is crying out for) you'd make millions!



4. Motorstoppmittel (means to stop engines) the weapon by which the Germans proposed to halt all ignition based engines within a certain radius.


- What is so advanced about this?
"Stop sand" to clog engines spread by a handgrenade!?

Another way conceived to fight the armor with hand grenades was the use of a Motorstopmittel ("engine stop agent"). A handgrenade was filled with fine powder - Stopsand - that was to be sucked into the tank's engine. It was obvious that the weapon would be useless if appropriate air intake filters were installed on the tanks.

www.geocities.com...


5. German rail guns.


- Everyone has been interested in railguns at one time or another.
Without super-conducting they are not feasible on any real scale (as the mag-lift train projects - once again using the best and latest knowledge and lavish materials and financial resourcing - all around the world post WW2 show very clearly.)


Tell me which you think are frauds and we can talk about them.


- There is a difference between a project genuinely looking at a topic back then and the wild claims that have been later made for such 'projects'.

Especially those claims made by those who have gotten very rich picking over the unusual and obscure from Germany back then.

The first has nothing to do with 'fraud', the second (like much of the 'amazing German secret weapons of WW2' industry stretches the truth so ludicrously that that does, IMO, become fraud.

Show an example of any German project 'covered up'. There isn't one.
There have been litterally hundreds (if not thousands) of books going on and on and on and on about this supposedly amazing and staggeringly advanced nazi tech - much of it in fact an interesting blend of old traditional skills and the - then - emergent new.
(Go look at a sectioned V2 or Me 262 etc to see what I mean, wooden parts sitting along side the - then- advanced electrical.)

The claims that this is all just a stone-wall cover-up flies in the face of reality.

The museums of the victorious allies are full of examples of WW2 German tech; there were - in the UK at least - exhibitions and travelling shows immeadiately post war showing what was captured, including the rockets and jets.
Why show off that 'advanced' stuff and hide others?

.......and if such a cover-up existed why would the USSR in particular (cos they must have been party to it too as they would have known all or most of the 'true story' thanks to what they captured) help hide this manipulative 'plot'?
Surely they would have been quick to expose the falsehood of western claims of 'freedom' and 'truth' to cause the western public to have no confidence in their obviously manipulative governments?

It makes no sense at all......and once again beyond the theorising there is not the slightest shred of evidence in support of it.

But you carry on believing what you want to believe.
Life's too short to be dwelling too long on the ridiculous wild claims and crumbling old relics of a deservedly failed poisonous ideology.


[edit on 13-6-2005 by sminkeypinkey]


You know something Smikeypinkey, I hope everybody at ATS can see this thread and your comments above---I just can't wait.

Smikeypinkey, attacking Farrell's work on Egypt to attack his work on the 3rd Recih? Is that all you have to say? Let me ask you a couple simple questions: Have your read his two books on the Giza Death Star? Are you in a postion to judge him if you did? Isn't this the same sort of attack you mounted on him? I have a B.A. in Anthropology so I ought to be able to handle you and your thinking on this one in my sleep.

Next, you rant about my showing you acedemic nonsense. Apparently, you didn't read any of those references I gave you. Let me see if I have this right, I lead you to water, you refuse to drink, then you argue with me about how you think the water might taste. Does that about sum up your paragraph or did I miss something?

You say "The idea of a German A-bomb is hilarious". Somehow it wasn't funny to Luigi Romersa. I am also going to refer you to the previous references given above but this one will suffice for you and I am going to use Romersa again for brevity. You might remember the Italians did a flip-flop an imprisoned Mussolini. After Mussolini was freed from the Gran Sasso Hotel by Otto Skorzeny, he was taken to Vienna and set up in Northern Italy with his own government to defend the southern Alps. Mussolini had second thoughts (naturally) at this point (1944) and wanted a meeting with Hitler. At the meeting Hitler promised Wunderwaffe but Mussolini was skeptical. He arranged to send a personal representative to Germany to review some of Hitler's weaponry. That representative was Luigi Romersa. Romersa enjoyed a career after WW2 and in 1984 wrote an account of one aspect of his visit to Germany in Defensa, Number 76-77, August-September of 1984 (Italian Language). This was translated to German as Die "Geheimwaffen" von Hilter, etwas mehr as (nur) Phantasie" (The secret weapons of Hitler, something more than only fantasy). In that article Romersa describes being taken to Ruegen Island, just north of Peeneuende, put in a block house of concrete in a mock city, complete with buildings, cars, railroad cars, trees, houses, etc. and told that an atomic bomb would be detonated. It was. He describes the blast, the heat, the wind, everything including the asphalt street burning. He describes being given special coveralls and a helmut to wear after several hours and being taken back to Berlin. Maybe you think this old man is just crazy but he is alive and well in Italy and recently did a little production for BBC/History Channel which aired in Australia (your country?) which you may have seen and to which we will come back to. Impeach Romersa and we will talk. Hell, you might even find him using your research methods, internet websites.

Me 109. Evidently you either didn't follow my last post, didn't or couldn't look up the source. Friedrich Georg in that book cited also discussed using the Ju 87 and many, many other aircraft and types of aircraft to deliver an atomic weapon. Georg has his top picks for the job including a He 177, similar to the He 111 but there were really exotic models made including mounting a ram jet on top of an existing bomber. This was done both to test the Saenger ram jet and to test the feasibility of using the combination as a nuclear bomber. Georg sent me pictures of one or two such wrecked aircraft found after the war in France. You did note this bomb's small size and light weight, didn't you? But, if you don't like the use of the Me 109 for this particular weapon, please state your reasons.

You say you have found these sources "freely" on the internet--good, then object intelligently, PLEASE!

You would love to know who stated the A-10 was a tangable reality? Ok, I'm going to save my own work since it is not published but I will refer you to where you can find what you are asking for, not that I expect you to check it out but I will, again, lead you to water: Edgar Mayer & Thomas Mehner, "Die Bombe und das Dritte Reich", page 121-125 show a sequence or arial photographs taken (by US aircraft) over Rudisleben, near Jonastal, Thruingia, starting March 16, 1945, March 28, 1945 and then after American occupation, July, 1945. What the photographs show is a munitions yard, power producing facility, and probable underground liquid fuel storage facilities. The subject of the pictures is a 30 meter structure, completely encased in wood to prevent observation. 30 meters is the size of the A-9/A-10 assembled. This might seem unimportant (not so for the Americans it seems). Patton did a big right turn to this spot at this time. Mehner lives in this area and interviewed many old timers living in the area. At least three report that the wooden covering was removed at night and that they saw the launching of a huge rocket in late March, 1945. The rocket headed north. The only rocket which fits this description is the A-9/A-10. There is alot of other references but I doubt if you would bother and you have rasied other issues. Maybe they can answer questions at http:www.kopp-verlag.de Mehner is the publisher and he understands English.

I am going to post this for now and return.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join