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: 6
0
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 14 2005 @ 01:30 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 want a Hans Coler device built and tested for you? Guess what, the British did that. Evidently, you didn't get on your favorite research device, the internet, and google "Hans Coler". If you did you would have found the British Intelligence Objectives Sub-Committee report posted there and you would have read their test results. Not only theirs but the test results of Dr. W.O. Schumann and Dr. Froelich whose analysis the British also included in their report. But, you might try Dr. Hans Nieper, 1985, Conversion of Gravity Field Energy Revolution in Technology, Medicine and Society. On or near page 132 is a picture of a reconstructed type1 Coler device which worked and had constant electric tension.

Incidently, Rogue 1, this is the basic text book for aether theory. This is a translation from German which is available at any large library. You must read ever word, though, and re-read it. This is the source Europeans go to first when inquiring about this subject.

"Fraud", re-read what I posted about U-234 and its contents. That's FRAUD!

Motorstopmittel has nothing to do with your link about Panzerfaust or anthing to do with sand. You still haven't contacted Rogue 1 about references in Farrell's book, have you. OK. Motorstopmittel was named and described to all the US spy agencies, US military, US National Archives. They all came back "no record". The actual physical mechanism was described under appeal. Still "no record". Then we found the United States Strategic Air Forces in Europe Office of the Director of Intelligence "An Evaluation Of German Capabilities in 1945" (written in 1944). There they name Motorstopmittel, "Magnetic Wave". Not only that, THEY described its workings!!! Now we had them. We hit them with both barrels and got all the underlying reports on this device including hand-written notes of field agents. The mechanism is simple but evidently takes some power. It is all radio frequency technology which sends the same signal as received from the target's spark plugs (radio frequency signal--electromagnetic signal). The device simply receives and amplifies it and sends it back. If within range, every metal part on the aircraft acts as an antennea and the distributor (magneto) fails. It was real, it worked within limited range, and the US goverment suppressed knowledge of it.

Rail Guns (by this time I guess you know you are in big trouble Smikeypinkey!) NO the Germans didn't need superconductors to build rail guns and they did build rail guns. This has been known for 50 years. Go to the big library near you and get a copy of Rudolf Lusar's Die deutschen Waffen und Geheimwaffen des 2 Weltkrieges und ihre Weiterentwicklung" (The German weapons and secret weapons of the SecondWorld war and their further development). This is also available in English and is commonly found in University libraries. Go to page 215, 1964 German edition or "Electric Guns" or "Electric Cannons" in the English edition. There you will find that the Germans made two working versions of these anti-aircraft weapons and tested them. Of course, that is not good enough for us, is it Smikeypinkey? So, with a little work, we find: "Ein Beitrag zm Problem des Elektrischen Geschutets" by Dr. Joachim Haensler of the Gesellschaft fuer Geraetebau m.b.H. which was written in June, 1945 for the Americans describing the math, design and practical problems involved in this technology. The energy requirements were detailed including how many generators of a particular wattage, the losses due to conduction, etc. the resistance of the projectiles due to inductance, the inductance of the generators in the vicinity and other miuntia. But then we have another work of Dr. Haenlser's written during the war, marked "Geheime Kommandosache", same company, in even more detail about the anti-aircraft uses (spot defense) and the use to launch large rockets using this technology on tracks which must have been over a mile long. These were on the drawing boards but the rail guns themselves were working technology. There are many drawing included, even the projectiles. But you can see a projectile of what must be a small version in a published book by Harald Faith: "1945 - Thuerigens Manhattan Project", page 104, which I also remember seeing in Joseph Farrell's book, right Rogue1?

You know, Smikeypinkey, these are obscure sources, as you say and complain about, but this is an obscure subject and one filled with intensional government suppression. Another way to phrase your complaint would be to simply admit that you don't know what you are talking about. That way, you don't sound so learned, but you have covered your ass.




posted on Jun, 14 2005 @ 01:42 AM
link   
Oh yes, SmikeyPinkey, I almost forgot to return to Luigi Romersa. This is in connetion to your discussion of German flying saucers and your remarks indicating you had no basis for considering such things. You might have seen the BBC/History Channel TV program about man-made flying discs which aired recently in Australia. If not, it will air again. In it Luigi Romersa in interviewed. I talked to the field director/producer, Mr. Derek J. He told me he filmed Luigi stating that after the Ruegen Island atomic test, he was taken to Prague and shown Schriever's flying disc in a hanger. He saw this close-up and personal. He also met Rudolf Schriever. Maybe you will want to contact Romersa personally and tell he he didn't see what he saw.



posted on Jun, 14 2005 @ 07:58 AM
link   

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


- It's a public message board, of course they can see it.

....although I suspect any actual interest is very low.

Like I said before, I'm not going to engage in this ridiculous going around in circles with you.

You refuse to answer points and simply heap more onto the pile.

1) A German WW2 Atomic bomb.

You now claim that with woefully limited resources and with the senior atomic team utterly unaware of it another small secret German team perfected and exploded a nuclear device of a size and type it took the 'west' and Russians decades after WW2 to perfect - with all the lavish resources at their disposal and enormous effort (way in excess of anything Germany could muster).

2) The A10 rocket.

Despite Von Braun outlining the rocket program you state they actually constructed and tested the A10 rocket (all on the basis of a 30' wooden container!).

Once again despite lavish and intense efforts this kind of device was not perfected in east or west for over a decade (with, in large part the same teams working on them!)

3) Rail Guns.

I do not deny anyone made a working rail gun to test.
That happened in lots of countries; I do deny that until superconducters came along they were totally impractical for any military (or for that matter) civillian use.
(again as proved by the decades of well resourced mag-lift train efforts around the world since the 1960's)

If I could be bothered I could continue to go around in these ludicrous circles with you but I can't.
It's just too boring.

Remember, 'you win'.



[edit on 14-6-2005 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 12:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey

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


- It's a public message board, of course they can see it.

....although I suspect any actual interest is very low.

Like I said before, I'm not going to engage in this ridiculous going around in circles with you.

You refuse to answer points and simply heap more onto the pile.

1) A German WW2 Atomic bomb.

You now claim that with woefully limited resources and with the senior atomic team utterly unaware of it another small secret German team perfected and exploded a nuclear device of a size and type it took the 'west' and Russians decades after WW2 to perfect - with all the lavish resources at their disposal and enormous effort (way in excess of anything Germany could muster).

2) The A10 rocket.

Despite Von Braun outlining the rocket program you state they actually constructed and tested the A10 rocket (all on the basis of a 30' wooden container!).

Once again despite lavish and intense efforts this kind of device was not perfected in east or west for over a decade (with, in large part the same teams working on them!)

3) Rail Guns.

I do not deny anyone made a working rail gun to test.
That happened in lots of countries; I do deny that until superconducters came along they were totally impractical for any military (or for that matter) civillian use.
(again as proved by the decades of well resourced mag-lift train efforts around the world since the 1960's)

If I could be bothered I could continue to go around in these ludicrous circles with you but I can't.
It's just too boring.

Remember, 'you win'.



[edit on 14-6-2005 by sminkeypinkey]


SmikeyPinkey,

We are not going around in circles. I am supplying references, you can not or will not deal with them, and then you attempt to raise other issues. I countered those additonal issues you raised with more evidence, you kept running and now here we are with you leaving the thread. Honestly, I can't blame you since you don't seem to be able to admit that there just might be something, some information, which can't be drowned out by your dogma.

1. There were many German atomic teams. Check Thomas Powers "Heisenberg's War" for the party line on the subject. He said three teams. I think Tom Agoston, "Blunder" mentioned an SS team working out of the Kammler Group in Prague/Pilsen but if not it has been reported in almost all the German language references above. This goup was headed by Dr. Kurt Diebner. In addtion to this secret group, Diebner had his own group, at least for awhile. There was also the group in or at Vienna which we probably know least about. Not all this was discussed or disclosed during the Farm Hall sting but that conversation is taken as gospel by establishment historians (up until this year), and the minimalizationists such as yourself.

2. A-10 there exists other evidence besides the American intelligence photographs and interest as well as the eyewitness (which you forgot). But I am going to save that for now. What I have cited is more than enough for you since you have not touched its validity.

As for von Braun "outlining the rocket program", I really don't know how you could be so out of touch. Von Braun was told, as they all were, what to disclose and what not to disclose. Von Braun disclosed nothing, per instructions. Essentially, the instructions read "What happened in Peenemuende stays in Peenemuende". For instance, von Braun denied German saucers at Peenemuende. Yet he himself had plans for one which was to fly to 300 kilometers in altitude according to the Swedish newspaper Aftonbladt. Sweden was neutral, remember. Also, Heinrich Fleissner, a fludicis engineer made a 1950s claim in an interview that he worked on a saucer project there and later filed a patent for a saucer which far exceeded what would have been his limited involvement as a fluidics engineer. Additonally, Dr. Walter Riedel, a member of the von Braun Paperclip team stated in California that that he had worked on a German saucer which was entering assembly-line production---so there were cracks in the story. Von Braun also sent a rocket expert to talk with menbers of one of the atomic teams. What do you think they were talking about? Did you know

3. Rail guns: Superconductors are not ---not ---an essential component in a rail gun. A superconductor only means that no electrical energy will be lost in CONDUCTION or storage. Superconductors have nothing to do with the big problem, inductance. All that is necessary is electric energy in sufficient quantity to power the projectle to the required speed. This can be done without superconductors as the Germans proved. A tremendous supply of electrical energy is and was necessary and the weapon was essentially stationary because of this need for support. It could only be used as a spot defense and then only if you could keep the generators running. But the rail gun "fired" projectiles much, much faster than any cannon so the idea was of interest.

Now, I have done all the answering in this thread. Again, again, again and again, what are your objections--not to me, the messenger, but to the references themselves?



posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Forschung
what are your objections--not to me, the messenger, but to the references themselves?


- The usual with you guys.

It's 99% unsubstantiated claim and a ton of speculative 'ifs', 'but's', 'coulds', 'mights' and 'maybes'.
With 1% verifiable truth (like the awesome revelations they were working on rail guns and had small scale working test rigs.....like wow, who wasn't and didn't) just to attempt to glean a tad of credibility to the wild claims.

Anactic base anyone, been in orbit/ to the moon lately etc etc.


......and I am not inclined to view a mere handful of non-expert 'witnesses' (particularly at events where - if true - there should have been tens if not hundreds) as 'gospel' either; especially this late in the day.

(BTW your comment about Von Braun et al "keeping at Peenemunde what was done at Peenemunde" is hysterically funny given their later 'careers!
.....and the bit about a low orbit craft is another very funny comment - this supposedly from the country that back then couldn't construct a pressurised cockpit nor a decent high altitude plane for love nor money!)

.....and as for who is running away I guess you have no intention of answering my challenge (just to relate this right back to where this all started) of giving 10 similarities - beyond the most superficial - to demonstrate the clear influences particular to the Ho 9 and the B2 to demonstrate this 'fatherhood' you claimed earlier, hmmm?

A staggeringly outrageous claim (but so typical of the 'Adolf's gang were so advanced and great, really' crowd) given Northrops own decades of study and actual hard work.

What little you can claim for the Horten craft I can point with far greater authority to Northrops own craft (including several large multi-engined bombers).
The 'roots' of the B2 are clear to all, but the star-struck and deluded (and mainly young men too, sadly).

(Even the issue of RAM is far more likely to have come from U-boats than anything of substance is likely to have come from this (disputed) short visit to glance over the rotting remains of the Horten.)

No doubt you will make several more claims and cite a few more so-called (usually non-expert) witness accounts.

Show me the 'signature' A-bomb fall out; show me the A 9 first stage motors, show me the pratical large scale rail gun, show me the Horten 18 (beyond the usual sketches).
Show me anything of genuine substance to back your claims and a few credible expert opinions.

Of course you can't.

.....and of course you cannot back your Horten claim either.

Beyond it being a flying wing (of a completely different shape) and being jet powered (by 2 not 4 engines) and carring a man (as opposed to a crew of 2) there are no similarities whatsoever andyour claim that "the B2 had a German father" is as ludicrously bogus as your fantasies about all the rest.

I'm done with this childish nonsense, goodbye.

[edit on 15-6-2005 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 07:19 PM
link   
For those who think I have been too dismissive about this supposed German A-bomb I suggest a look at this German critique; you'll find nuclear wepons experts from Germany today commenting on the latest Rainer Karlsch claims (and even Luigi Romersa get's a mention
).

Check out the full article (© DER SPIEGEL 11/2005); here are a few choice samples of it.


Berlin historian Rainer Karlsch claims that the Nazis conducted three nuclear weapons tests in 1944 and 1945. But he has no proof to back up his theories.......

......The only problem with all the hype is that the historian has no real proof to back up his spectacular theories.

His witnesses either lack credibility or have no first-hand knowledge of the events described in the book. What Karlsch insists are key documents can, in truth, be interpreted in various ways, some of which contradict his theory.......

......Joachim Schulze, a nuclear weapons expert at Germany's Fraunhofer Institute, took a look at Karlsch's model and said it would be "incapable of functioning.".......

......His key witness is Luigi Romersa, a former war reporter for a Milan newspaper, Corriere della Sera. For years Romersa, a Roman who is now 87, has been telling the story of how he visited Hitler in October 1944 and then was flown to an island in the Baltic Sea. Romersa says that he was taken to a dugout where he witnessed an explosion that produced a bright light, and that men wearing protective suits then drove him away from the site, telling him that what he had witnessed was a "fission bomb."

Unfortunately, Romersa doesn't recall the name of the island he claims to have visited or who was in charge of the bizarre event. Karlsch believes it was Ruegen. He dismisses the fact that soil analysis shows no evidence of a nuclear explosion by pointing to erosion......

......Another piece of evidence Karlsch cites is a March 1945 Soviet military espionage report. According to the report, which cites a "reliable source," the Germans "detonated two large explosions in Thuringia." The bombs, the Soviet spies wrote, presumably contained uranium 235, a material used in nuclear weapons, and produced a "highly radioactive effect." Prisoners of war housed at the center of the detonation were killed, "and in many cases their bodies were completely destroyed."

The Red Army's spies noted with concern that the Germany army could "slow down our offensive" with its new weapon. The fact that dictator Josef Stalin received one of the four copies of the report shows just how seriously the Kremlin took the news.

Unfortunately, the document Karlsch presents is of such poor quality that it cannot be clearly determined whether the report describing the explosions was written before or after the detonation Clare Werner claims to have witnessed.

More importantly, however, what Clare Werner claims to have seen could not have a detonation of the type of bomb the German informer sketched for the Red Army. That type of device would have required several kilograms of highly enriched uranium, which all experts, including Karlsch, believe Nazi Germany did not possess.......

.....Uwe Keyser, a nuclear physicist who works for Germany's Federal Institute of Physics and Technology in Braunschweig, is currently testing soil samples from Ohrdruf. Keyser believes that the readings for radioactive substances he has obtained so far are sufficiently abnormal so as not to rule out the explosion of a simple nuclear device. Of course, Keyser's readings could also be caused by naturally occurring processes, material left behind by Soviet forces stationed in Ohrdruf until 1994 or fallout from the Chernobyl disaster or nuclear weapons tests conducted by the superpowers.

service.spiegel.de...

- Like I keep saying; a stack of claims, some dodgy non-expert witnesses and precious little actual evidence.

It should also be noted that when the 'Farm Hall' tapes are being dismissed as all about Werner Heisenberg and therefore irrelevant that the leader of this supposedly successful 2nd team, Kurt Diebner, (and most of his personnel) were there, being taped, too!

Funny how little nuggets of information (just like so many of the problematic ones) just get left out, huh?



posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 10:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey

Originally posted by Forschung
what are your objections--not to me, the messenger, but to the references themselves?


- The usual with you guys.

It's 99% unsubstantiated claim and a ton of speculative 'ifs', 'but's', 'coulds', 'mights' and 'maybes'.
With 1% verifiable truth (like the awesome revelations they were working on rail guns and had small scale working test rigs.....like wow, who wasn't and didn't) just to attempt to glean a tad of credibility to the wild claims.

Anactic base anyone, been in orbit/ to the moon lately etc etc.


......and I am not inclined to view a mere handful of non-expert 'witnesses' (particularly at events where - if true - there should have been tens if not hundreds) as 'gospel' either; especially this late in the day.

(BTW your comment about Von Braun et al "keeping at Peenemunde what was done at Peenemunde" is hysterically funny given their later 'careers!
.....and the bit about a low orbit craft is another very funny comment - this supposedly from the country that back then couldn't construct a pressurised cockpit nor a decent high altitude plane for love nor money!)

.....and as for who is running away I guess you have no intention of answering my challenge (just to relate this right back to where this all started) of giving 10 similarities - beyond the most superficial - to demonstrate the clear influences particular to the Ho 9 and the B2 to demonstrate this 'fatherhood' you claimed earlier, hmmm?

A staggeringly outrageous claim (but so typical of the 'Adolf's gang were so advanced and great, really' crowd) given Northrops own decades of study and actual hard work.

What little you can claim for the Horten craft I can point with far greater authority to Northrops own craft (including several large multi-engined bombers).
The 'roots' of the B2 are clear to all, but the star-struck and deluded (and mainly young men too, sadly).

(Even the issue of RAM is far more likely to have come from U-boats than anything of substance is likely to have come from this (disputed) short visit to glance over the rotting remains of the Horten.)

No doubt you will make several more claims and cite a few more so-called (usually non-expert) witness accounts.

Show me the 'signature' A-bomb fall out; show me the A 9 first stage motors, show me the pratical large scale rail gun, show me the Horten 18 (beyond the usual sketches).
Show me anything of genuine substance to back your claims and a few credible expert opinions.

Of course you can't.

.....and of course you cannot back your Horten claim either.

Beyond it being a flying wing (of a completely different shape) and being jet powered (by 2 not 4 engines) and carring a man (as opposed to a crew of 2) there are no similarities whatsoever andyour claim that "the B2 had a German father" is as ludicrously bogus as your fantasies about all the rest.

I'm done with this childish nonsense, goodbye.

[edit on 15-6-2005 by sminkeypinkey]


SmikeyPinkey,,

Thank you for posting all those rebutal references. Your argument is impeccable. You, an authority who has carefully researched this whole matter, is of the opinion that what you don't know can hurt you. Does that about sum up your rebuttal?



posted on Jun, 15 2005 @ 11:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
For those who think I have been too dismissive about this supposed German A-bomb I suggest a look at this German critique; you'll find nuclear wepons experts from Germany today commenting on the latest Rainer Karlsch claims (and even Luigi Romersa get's a mention
).

Check out the full article (© DER SPIEGEL 11/2005); here are a few choice samples of it.


Berlin historian Rainer Karlsch claims that the Nazis conducted three nuclear weapons tests in 1944 and 1945. But he has no proof to back up his theories.......

......The only problem with all the hype is that the historian has no real proof to back up his spectacular theories.

His witnesses either lack credibility or have no first-hand knowledge of the events described in the book. What Karlsch insists are key documents can, in truth, be interpreted in various ways, some of which contradict his theory.......

......Joachim Schulze, a nuclear weapons expert at Germany's Fraunhofer Institute, took a look at Karlsch's model and said it would be "incapable of functioning.".......

......His key witness is Luigi Romersa, a former war reporter for a Milan newspaper, Corriere della Sera. For years Romersa, a Roman who is now 87, has been telling the story of how he visited Hitler in October 1944 and then was flown to an island in the Baltic Sea. Romersa says that he was taken to a dugout where he witnessed an explosion that produced a bright light, and that men wearing protective suits then drove him away from the site, telling him that what he had witnessed was a "fission bomb."

Unfortunately, Romersa doesn't recall the name of the island he claims to have visited or who was in charge of the bizarre event. Karlsch believes it was Ruegen. He dismisses the fact that soil analysis shows no evidence of a nuclear explosion by pointing to erosion......

......Another piece of evidence Karlsch cites is a March 1945 Soviet military espionage report. According to the report, which cites a "reliable source," the Germans "detonated two large explosions in Thuringia." The bombs, the Soviet spies wrote, presumably contained uranium 235, a material used in nuclear weapons, and produced a "highly radioactive effect." Prisoners of war housed at the center of the detonation were killed, "and in many cases their bodies were completely destroyed."

The Red Army's spies noted with concern that the Germany army could "slow down our offensive" with its new weapon. The fact that dictator Josef Stalin received one of the four copies of the report shows just how seriously the Kremlin took the news.

Unfortunately, the document Karlsch presents is of such poor quality that it cannot be clearly determined whether the report describing the explosions was written before or after the detonation Clare Werner claims to have witnessed.

More importantly, however, what Clare Werner claims to have seen could not have a detonation of the type of bomb the German informer sketched for the Red Army. That type of device would have required several kilograms of highly enriched uranium, which all experts, including Karlsch, believe Nazi Germany did not possess.......

.....Uwe Keyser, a nuclear physicist who works for Germany's Federal Institute of Physics and Technology in Braunschweig, is currently testing soil samples from Ohrdruf. Keyser believes that the readings for radioactive substances he has obtained so far are sufficiently abnormal so as not to rule out the explosion of a simple nuclear device. Of course, Keyser's readings could also be caused by naturally occurring processes, material left behind by Soviet forces stationed in Ohrdruf until 1994 or fallout from the Chernobyl disaster or nuclear weapons tests conducted by the superpowers.

service.spiegel.de...

- Like I keep saying; a stack of claims, some dodgy non-expert witnesses and precious little actual evidence.

It should also be noted that when the 'Farm Hall' tapes are being dismissed as all about Werner Heisenberg and therefore irrelevant that the leader of this supposedly successful 2nd team, Kurt Diebner, (and most of his personnel) were there, being taped, too!

Funny how little nuggets of information (just like so many of the problematic ones) just get left out, huh?



SmikeyPinkey: God I love this job, let's go through Spiegel's claims one by one.

1. "Rainer Karlsch lacks proof for the three tests", yet then you, citing Spiegel, say that Luigi Romersa can't remember the name of the island where he saw the atomic test. That is simply a lie. Romersa names it as Ruegen Island (geschrieben mit Umlaut) in the 1985 Defensa article I cited above. There it is, written in plain type, black and white. Did you miss this or did Spiegel miss this and you just repeated it without checking?

2. "no first-hand knowledge"---are these guys stupid or what--they just cited Luigi Romersa and admitted he was a witness, never mind the other witness in the aircraft who saw the test.

3. "Soviet document of such poor quality that it cannot be determined if the explosions were before or after the explosions Clare Werner witnessed". Who cares if it is before or after. The Soviet documents are good enough for Spiegel to get out the entire story, Clare Werner is a red herring--I will return to her in a moment. The point is that the Soviet documents were good and they got the story and it was presented to Spiegel which has retold it for our benifit.

4. An expert says Karlsch's model won't work---so that is proof the Germans didn't test an atomic bomb? There are more than one model of German atomic weapons from an implosion plutonium bomb to a parifin beehive like structure. I've got a flash for this expert. Take a reactor, pull out the safety controls and you have an atomic bomb. The Germans invented the atomic reactor and did the first controlled chain reaction with it in 1939. Worst case is that they drop a reactor. Very weak objection, Smikeypinkey.

5. Clare Werner was, is, the caretaker of a castle overlooking Jonastal, the Jones Valley, Thuringia. From her vantage point at the top of the castle, she has seen many strange things. She has seen glowing lights over the Jonas Valley. She has seen what she describes (she is an uneducated woman) as lightning bolts striking the earth as one of the secret underground machines was fired up during the war. What I believe Spiegel is referring to is the alleged detonation of a small nuke at the Truppenuebungsplatz, the soldiers marching and exercise area on a plateau above the valley near Ohrdruf. This had nothing to do with the detonation at Ruegen Island. The fact that abnormally high levels of radiation are present in this area pretty much validates Clare's testimony.

6. Blaming the Ohrdruf radioactivity on the 1994 Chernobyl accident is only a new way to say "swamp gas". The wind blew North towards Sweden, that's how the whole thing unraveled, not towards the former East Germany.

7. Most of Dr. Diebner's personnel were not at Farm Hall. In fact, I know of none. Certainly, the SS group wasn't there. Was Dr. Lachner there? Was Dr. Kammler there? Was Dr. Richter there? No in all cases. If you follow, through Powers "Heisenberg's War", with the knowledge that there were other atomic groups involved, you get a whole new understanding of why the conversation was so stilted, vague, an minimal.

Like I keep saying, know your facts before you speak, Smikeypinkey.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 3  4  5   >>

log in

join