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.

 

US Anti-Gravity tech copied from Nazi developments:Jane's ;Great conspiracy

page: 4
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 24 2005 @ 10:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dallas
However B2 technology, in my opinion, had nothing in this technology areas accept the Rich's wooden V craft escaping radar.


- Zaphod is right; there are decades of actual hard work and research done by Northrop on flying wing designs.

The B2 has an American 'father', 'mother' and a host of 'brothers' and 'sisters' ........and given the duration of Jack Northrop's research and work on flying wings a fine set of grandaddy and grandmas too.

The one aspect of this I am prepared to accept that has a possible German root (but only amongst many.......they weren't the only ones to note the variable radar reflectivity in some designs compared to others) is RAM......

....and let's not forget, given how little the German knew about centimetric radar (their versions of it were stright modified copies of captured allied sets), even that is being pretty generous.

In any case I'd bet the house that this RAM research began with the 'Wesch mats' (RAM mat cladding) the Germans used extensively later in the war on their U-boat schnorkal masts as opposed to the coating (of necessity untested and in its infancy) on any single Horten prototype that made it into reality.

Some folks seem to be reading a hell of a lot in to a day or an afternoon's (disputed) museum visit to glance over the dusty and rotting remains of the Ho9 flying wing.




posted on Jun, 24 2005 @ 09:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stealth Spy

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
I do think we can be pretty certain that the claims regarding nazi A-bombs are a total crock.





Even the BBC has given merit to these claims.



Hitler tested small atom bomb

A German historian has claimed in a new book presented on Monday that Nazi scientists successfully tested a tactical nuclear weapon in the last months of World War II.

Rainer Karlsch said that new research in Soviet and also Western archives, along with measurements carried out at one of the test sites, provided evidence for the existence of the weapon.

"The important thing in my book is the finding that the Germans had an atomic reactor near Berlin which was running for a short while, perhaps some days or weeks," he told the BBC.

"The second important finding was the atomic tests carried out in Thuringia and on the Baltic Sea."

Mr Karlsch describes what the Germans had as a "hybrid tactical nuclear weapon" much smaller than those dropped on Hiroshima or Nagasaki.

"It's clear there was no master plan for developing atom bombs. But it's also clear the Germans were the first to make atomic energy useable, and that at the end of this development was a successful test of a tactical nuclear weapon."

Read the rest (best part) : news.bbc.co.uk...


i read somewhere that germany didn't have the atomic bomb but had a bomb that was the equivalent to a modern day dirty bomb. it had enriched urainium powder but there was not enough urainium to set off a nuclear reaction.



posted on Jun, 24 2005 @ 10:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
The only problem with the B-2/German link is that the B-2 was based on the work that Jack Northrop did with flying wings, including the XB-35. There was no technology transfer as most of the work was done during the war, work on both the German and American flying wings were done seperately. When Northrop designed the B-2 they took a lot of the work Jack Northrop did and incorporated it into the design.


There was. The Northrop engineers visited the one remaining partially complete Horton 9 (Gotha 229) BEFORE completing the B-2 for ideas. This has all been debated extensively in the thread concering the Horton 9 and the B-2, and stuffed down the throats of would-be Undervaluationists like SmikeyPinkey.

The new post of BBC acceptance of German atomic testing is very cool and has also been stuffed down the throats of some of the same and some other Undervaluationists at another thread.

The issue here is German field propulsion experimentation and its relationship, if any, to UFOs, "anti-gravity" or maybe other implications. Any takers wanting to attach my posting above, please step up to the plate.



posted on Jun, 25 2005 @ 03:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
was based on the work that Jack Northrop did with flying wings, including the XB-35. There was no technology transfer as most of the work was done during the war
I said the initial work on flying wings was done during the war, as in WWII. I didn't say anything about a tech transfer for the B-2, and even if they DID visit the flying wing that Germany built, I really don't think they could have gotten much out of it to put into the B-2 that they didn't already know.



posted on Jun, 25 2005 @ 08:41 AM
link   
I have previously asked for any serious indication of this claimed "technology transfer" before and been met with a deafening silence.

Beyond a slightly similar (but not actually the same) shape, what tech transfer?

Come on, seriously, what, exactly, is the Ho9 technology that is "shared" with the B2?

This idea is actually very very funny.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Another very funny idea is this current German bomb story.

Besides the actual detail not being quite as presented in many places (witness this context-less, undated and extremely laughable mere 'sketch' that has been inflated - beyond any serious historical credibility - into a 'schematic') it would appear that even the heros of this latest series of comments aren't listened to by the fan club and the 'wanna-believe' crowd either -


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

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

www.abc.net.au...

It's also worth noting that although the absence of any credible actual German WW2 'A-bomb' has promoted stories of a 'radiological bomb' (the dirty bomb idea) - clearly just a coincidence that these follow on from the fears generated by 9/11 and fears of a possible terrorist use of such a 'weapon' (yeah right
), studies done indicate they are very likely to be extremely ineffective.
The fear of them being probably more effective than the reality.

Recent studies indicated people would have to stay around significant amounts of the major parts of radioactive debris for years to become ill - not necessarily die.

It is referred to in the short films 'The power of nightmares'; one of those interviewed on the film said -

"I don't think it would kill anybody," says Dr Theodore Rockwell, an authority on radiation, in an interview for the series. "You'll have trouble finding a serious report that would claim otherwise." The American department of energy, Rockwell continues, has simulated a dirty bomb explosion, "and they calculated that the most exposed individual would get a fairly high dose [of radiation], not life-threatening." And even this minor threat is open to question. The test assumed that no one fled the explosion for one year.

www.guardian.co.uk...

So, if people want to go with the idea that the Germans planned an ineffective dirty bomb 'fuelled' with uranium oxide (nothing like sufficient on its own for an actual A-bomb), fine.
There's still almost nothing to back up such conjecture and again it would have had zero effect on the outcome of anything in the war.

Not that it'll stop the 3rd Reich fan club bleating away.


[edit on 25-6-2005 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Jun, 25 2005 @ 08:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
ICome on, seriously, what technology does the Ho9 share with the B2?


Both burn hydrocarbon based fuel. oooooooh both fly too


And the German bomb hype is just that!



posted on Jun, 25 2005 @ 08:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Stealth Spy

Why'd ya' post this? Are you upset that at the end of WWII America
may have taken NAZI technology? If so .. why? Germany started WWII.
They cost the world billions of dollars and millions upon millions of lives.
They OWED the world. They LOST the war and they owed the victors.
America was perfectly within it's rights to take any technology it wanted
to pay itself back for the cost of the war.

Anything the UK found, or Russia (etc) ... good for them.

Their losses because of Germany were staggering as well.

If you posted the
for a different reason .. nevermind this post.



posted on Jun, 25 2005 @ 10:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by FredT
Both burn hydrocarbon based fuel. oooooooh both fly too


And the German bomb hype is just that!


- Oh Fred you "undervaluation-ist" you!


(Jayzuss H Creast, did you ever hear the like?

Yeah, I mean, how dare you or I not hold the 3rd Reich and it's science in the kind of high regard the start-struck fan club types do, huh?!

.....you'll only get a load of dubious sources and circular arguement thrown at you, you know......then it'll be presented as an "I win" situation (
) and everyone'll be told you you had it "stuffed down your throat"!

......oh, what a give-away, huh?! Oooooer, sweetie!
)


[edit on 25-6-2005 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Jun, 25 2005 @ 09:33 PM
link   
Something occured to me last night when I was talking about this thread to someone else. The B-2 DOES use antigravity according to several links here, but they are still TRYING TO DEVELOP antigravity according to some links here. You can't have it both ways, either the B-2 uses it, which means it's been developed, or they're trying to develop it, which means the B-2 DOESN'T use it. There is no way that they would use something that was in the testing/development stage, into a B-2 and try to use it. The MIGHT have in the prototype, but it's highly doubtful considering the cost of the thing. So which is it? They've developed it and the B-2 uses it, or they're trying to develop it?



posted on Jun, 25 2005 @ 10:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58

Originally posted by Zaphod58
was based on the work that Jack Northrop did with flying wings, including the XB-35. There was no technology transfer as most of the work was done during the war
I said the initial work on flying wings was done during the war, as in WWII. I didn't say anything about a tech transfer for the B-2, and even if they DID visit the flying wing that Germany built, I really don't think they could have gotten much out of it to put into the B-2 that they didn't already know.


Northrop was chosen for this project because of the extensive research they had done in the past on flying wings, of that there is no doubt. But there was a reason the Northrop engineers flew all the way back to Maryland to look at the Horton9. There are no to aircraft which look so similar as the B-2 and the Horton9. Do you think there is a reason for this? Do you think the Northrop engineers flew back to Maryland for nothing? Since you do, what was that reason, Zaphod58?

SmikeyPinkey was buried in references for the flying wing topic and for the German atomic bomb thread. He challenged none of them. But, if you like, SmikeyPinkey, and didn't get enough the first time, please go right back to either of those threads and post SPECIFIC objections, not your usual rehetric (as you have done again above).

To the topic, have any of you guys got anything to say about the three FBI references and the little summary I supplied? Let's hear it now, here, SmikeyPinkey, not on another thread.



posted on Jun, 25 2005 @ 10:30 PM
link   
They went back to look at the flying wing that was there. Look at not necessarily copy from. If you know that someone else has done the same research as you did, wouldn't you want to verify things? It's one thing to look and say "Yes, they found the same thing that I did." and another to say "Let's copy what they did." It's the same with research on diseases. If were in a lab working on something, and someone else had done similar research, wouldn't you want to check to see if they did something that you wanted to try and it worked or not? YOu aren't copying what they did, just verifying results of your research. Northrop was considered one of the world leaders in flying wing techonology. Why would they need to copy something that was almost 60 years old for a cutting eadge airplane, when they had one of the leaders in the field that STARTED their company. Or maybe they knew about the plane, and just wanted to look at it and see what it looked like in person. There are any number of reasons they wanted to go there to take a look at it that had NOTHING to do with copying anything from them.

And for the record, I'm not trying to "undervalue" or take anything away from the Germans in WWII. TECHNOLOGY wise, they did wonders with what they had at the time. I just happen to think that there was no reason for Northrop to copy them for the B-2 when they had already built their own flying wings in many sizes, using different technology.

[edit on 25-6-2005 by Zaphod58]



posted on Jun, 25 2005 @ 10:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey
I have previously asked for any serious indication of this claimed "technology transfer" before and been met with a deafening silence.

Beyond a slightly similar (but not actually the same) shape, what tech transfer?

Come on, seriously, what, exactly, is the Ho9 technology that is "shared" with the B2?

This idea is actually very very funny.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Another very funny idea is this current German bomb story.

Besides the actual detail not being quite as presented in many places (witness this context-less, undated and extremely laughable mere 'sketch' that has been inflated - beyond any serious historical credibility - into a 'schematic') it would appear that even the heros of this latest series of comments aren't listened to by the fan club and the 'wanna-believe' crowd either -


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

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

www.abc.net.au...

It's also worth noting that although the absence of any credible actual German WW2 'A-bomb' has promoted stories of a 'radiological bomb' (the dirty bomb idea) - clearly just a coincidence that these follow on from the fears generated by 9/11 and fears of a possible terrorist use of such a 'weapon' (yeah right
), studies done indicate they are very likely to be extremely ineffective.
The fear of them being probably more effective than the reality.

Recent studies indicated people would have to stay around significant amounts of the major parts of radioactive debris for years to become ill - not necessarily die.

It is referred to in the short films 'The power of nightmares'; one of those interviewed on the film said -

"I don't think it would kill anybody," says Dr Theodore Rockwell, an authority on radiation, in an interview for the series. "You'll have trouble finding a serious report that would claim otherwise." The American department of energy, Rockwell continues, has simulated a dirty bomb explosion, "and they calculated that the most exposed individual would get a fairly high dose [of radiation], not life-threatening." And even this minor threat is open to question. The test assumed that no one fled the explosion for one year.

www.guardian.co.uk...

So, if people want to go with the idea that the Germans planned an ineffective dirty bomb 'fuelled' with uranium oxide (nothing like sufficient on its own for an actual A-bomb), fine.
There's still almost nothing to back up such conjecture and again it would have had zero effect on the outcome of anything in the war.

Not that it'll stop the 3rd Reich fan club bleating away.


[edit on 25-6-2005 by sminkeypinkey]


You want it repeated again? OK:

1. B-2--Horton9 shared flying wing design, recessed air intakes, recessed exhausts, RAM coating.


2. You say the Germans "planned an ineffective dirty bomb". There you go undervaluating again. You are British aren't you. I'll give you a reference you can find at your library: Philip Henshall, "Hitler's Nuclear Weapon Fact or Fiction?, 1995, pages 28-29. There Henshall diagrams the difference between a normal V-2 and a V-2 designed (especially designed) to carry a dirty bomb. The design calls for a complete reconfiguration of the fuel tanks which manifest itself visually with a "Korset" on the center section of the rocket. Anybody could immediately tell the difference from a distance. Guess what, SmikeyPinkey, Friedrich Georg has a photograph of this very dirty bomb carrying V-2 in one of his books (German language). So please check this out and post your specific objections, not usual unimformed put down.



posted on Jun, 25 2005 @ 10:48 PM
link   
Recessed intakes and exhaust and RAM coating are necessary if you want to have stealth. If you don't have long intakes, the radar bounces off the turbine wheel. If you don't have long exhaust, you can't cool it, and end up with a huge IR signature.



posted on Jun, 25 2005 @ 10:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Recessed intakes and exhaust and RAM coating are necessary if you want to have stealth. If you don't have long intakes, the radar bounces off the turbine wheel. If you don't have long exhaust, you can't cool it, and end up with a huge IR signature.


That is the point and it is exactly that which the Germans discovered with the Horton 9.



posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 11:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Forschung
1. B-2--Horton9 shared flying wing design


- In vague shape only.
The wing-plan is nothing like the same, actually.

If the shapes were exactly the same you would have a point but the B2 wing shape is similar to the Ho 9 as it is the Northrop N9.

ie a very very loose similarity and nothing like "a shared flying wing design", the specific design is nothing like the same.

This idea that the Northrop B2 relates less to other Northrop designs (for some unspecified reason) just because the Ho 9 was a flying wing too is simply absurd.
The very idea is laughable, have you actually seen the shapes (not to mention the actual sizes being several magnitudes apart?)?!


recessed air intakes


- This is simply not true. Are you trying to conceal the truth or just ignorant of the facts?
Go look at the pictures.
The Horten Ho 9 showed the 2 jets' compressor faces clearly from the frontal aspect.

The jet engine itself is buried in the wing, so what? The 'faces' of the jet engines themselves were not concealed in any way and therefore cannot be reasonably considered to have any 'stealth' characteristics.


recessed exhausts


- Again this is simply not true, the jet engines exhausted plainly to the rear without any of the highly sophisticated shielding we can see on the B2 or F117 etc etc at all.

Are you simply trying to conceal the truth or just ignorant of the facts?


RAM coating.


- You have absolutely no evidence whatsoever to show that the USAF's RAM (or any of it's stealth) technology came from the Ho9......nor that it was ever even assessed for its effectiveness or even investigated in any way at all by the Northrop people for the B2.

RAM was being applied to YF12/A12/SR71's in the early 1960's (which indicates a probable 1950's design.......and the 'iron ball paint' type usually referred to is again nothing like the charcoal, sawdust and glue 'matrix' the Germans used on the Ho9.
Try noting the references to the USA's own WW2 experiments and recognition regarding RCS and RAM, hmmm?
www.combat-diaries.co.uk...); clearly this is all long before the B2 - or the quick look around the interesting historical oddity that the Ho 9 represented.

Like I said, if there actually is any kind of German root to any of that it is most likely to be from the RAM mats U-boats clad their schnorkel masts with (but once again there no technical details as to how effective they were.....and there can be reasonable doubt as the Germans didn't even realise the allies had centimetric radar until mid 1943 whne the first 10cm H2S radar set was captured from a crashed pathpinder Sterling bomber), this all had nothing to do with the Ho 9.

Given that the best you can come up to show these so-called German 'roots' is a disputed story over a day or an afternoon's museum visit to look over the Ho9 sometime early in the B2's history (so late 1970's/early 1980's at the earliest) your claims are totally without credible foundation whatsoever.

- As for the fantasies about a Germanic A-bomb (of any realistic description) you carry on pal, knock yourself out with the UFO crowd, the anti-grav, the moon bases, the pyramid weapons and the antarctic bases.

Otherwise show me the explosion evidence and the specific 'signature' of it.

(and dodgy pictures in - your - typical single sources (yeah right
yet again cue the obscure 'German language-only' book
, just don't actually 'prove' anything, ok?

You are the one making the extravagently wild claims, therefore the onus is on you to support those claims, which you have singularly failed to do.)


[edit on 26-6-2005 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 11:52 AM
link   
Forschung, you criticise sminkeypinkey for supposedly 'ignoring' your points but you are guilty of exactly the same thing.

Again you trot out this erroneous claim;


. B-2--Horton9 shared flying wing design, recessed air intakes, recessed exhausts, RAM coating.


Now I can claim no knowledge of the origins of RAM coating so I must leave that alone but the Horten and the B-2 DO NOT share a design, any more than the F-111 and Tornado do, just as those two are utterly different VG designs so the two aircraft we are concerned with here are utterly different flying wing designs, or are you so shallow as to think that all flying wings MUST be the same?

Likewise the air intakes are not recessed, but plainly exposed on the leading edge in exactly the same way as the DH Comet, now thats not trying to be stealthy is it?

Also the exhausts, I explained this before but you never responded. The fact that they exhaust over the top surface of the wing is true, but any stealth benefits here are purely accidental and only effective from directly below as there was no attempt made to 'disguise' the exhaust from any other aspect, the output of the early jets was so feeble that no designer would dare try anything that might reduce its effectiveness further.

And here we come to the real reason the exhausts are where they are, the engines are positioned on top of the wing spar for CG reasons, this meant that the exhausts HAD to be where they are simply because extending them to the wing trailing edge would cause severe loss of thrust. Designers of all the early jets were forced to keep the jet pipes as short as possible, hence the design of the DH Vampire with its twin booms, Hawker P1040 with its split jetpipe from its centrally mounted engine exhausting at the wing root trailing edge and the He 162 with its single engine plonked on top of the fuselager rather than being contained within it.

This is another example of people building up German tech to a higher level than it was really at by looking at the engine arrangement of the Horten and, in the light of modern knowledgeof the B-2, going 'Ooh stealthy' rather than in the context of 1940's engine inefficiency which was the real reason.


Note - exposed intakes



and short exhausts to prevent loss of thrust






[edit on 26-6-2005 by waynos]



posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 12:16 PM
link   
Nice pics Waynos.

But no doubt this guy will simply ignore the truth and continue to post his wild claims.......which will sadly be sucked up by the gullible.

Several decades of hard work and research in the USA and Europe ignored to puff up this typical 3rd Reich fantasy......I just can't help but wonder why, hmmm?

Also note how those, apparantly, staggeringly advanced 1940's German manufacturers missed out on a main aspect of the 'stealth' design requirement......

......namely the total lack of canopy shielding (apparantly one of the major sources of radar reflectivity (which is how come modern combat aircraft have various coatings on the canopy).

But the real question has to be asked.......why am I still wasting my time giving this guy the satisfaction of a reasonable reply?
Oh well.



[edit on 26-6-2005 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 01:25 PM
link   
Yes, they are nice pics and despite what Forschung probably thinks, I do like these designs very much, Luft 46 is one of the sites in my favourites folder. But as you know, that doesn't mean I have to swallow all the guff too



posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 04:53 PM
link   
I still wanna know how the B-2 can use antigravity, if they're trying to develop antigravity tech. Did the aliens give it to them? [/sarcam]



posted on Jun, 26 2005 @ 11:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey

Originally posted by Forschung
1. B-2--Horton9 shared flying wing design


- In vague shape only.
The wing-plan is nothing like the same, actually.

If the shapes were exactly the same you would have a point but the B2 wing shape is similar to the Ho 9 as it is the Northrop N9.

ie a very very loose similarity and nothing like "a shared flying wing design", the specific design is nothing like the same.

This idea that the Northrop B2 relates less to other Northrop designs (for some unspecified reason) just because the Ho 9 was a flying wing too is simply absurd.
The very idea is laughable, have you actually seen the shapes (not to mention the actual sizes being several magnitudes apart?)?!


recessed air intakes


- This is simply not true. Are you trying to conceal the truth or just ignorant of the facts?
Go look at the pictures.
The Horten Ho 9 showed the 2 jets' compressor faces clearly from the frontal aspect.

The jet engine itself is buried in the wing, so what? The 'faces' of the jet engines themselves were not concealed in any way and therefore cannot be reasonably considered to have any 'stealth' characteristics.


recessed exhausts


- Again this is simply not true, the jet engines exhausted plainly to the rear without any of the highly sophisticated shielding we can see on the B2 or F117 etc etc at all.

Are you simply trying to conceal the truth or just ignorant of the facts?


RAM coating.


- You have absolutely no evidence whatsoever to show that the USAF's RAM (or any of it's stealth) technology came from the Ho9......nor that it was ever even assessed for its effectiveness or even investigated in any way at all by the Northrop people for the B2.

RAM was being applied to YF12/A12/SR71's in the early 1960's (which indicates a probable 1950's design.......and the 'iron ball paint' type usually referred to is again nothing like the charcoal, sawdust and glue 'matrix' the Germans used on the Ho9.
Try noting the references to the USA's own WW2 experiments and recognition regarding RCS and RAM, hmmm?
www.combat-diaries.co.uk...); clearly this is all long before the B2 - or the quick look around the interesting historical oddity that the Ho 9 represented.

Like I said, if there actually is any kind of German root to any of that it is most likely to be from the RAM mats U-boats clad their schnorkel masts with (but once again there no technical details as to how effective they were.....and there can be reasonable doubt as the Germans didn't even realise the allies had centimetric radar until mid 1943 whne the first 10cm H2S radar set was captured from a crashed pathpinder Sterling bomber), this all had nothing to do with the Ho 9.

Given that the best you can come up to show these so-called German 'roots' is a disputed story over a day or an afternoon's museum visit to look over the Ho9 sometime early in the B2's history (so late 1970's/early 1980's at the earliest) your claims are totally without credible foundation whatsoever.

- As for the fantasies about a Germanic A-bomb (of any realistic description) you carry on pal, knock yourself out with the UFO crowd, the anti-grav, the moon bases, the pyramid weapons and the antarctic bases.

Otherwise show me the explosion evidence and the specific 'signature' of it.

(and dodgy pictures in - your - typical single sources (yeah right
yet again cue the obscure 'German language-only' book
, just don't actually 'prove' anything, ok?

You are the one making the extravagently wild claims, therefore the onus is on you to support those claims, which you have singularly failed to do.)


[edit on 26-6-2005 by sminkeypinkey]


SmikeyPinkey, You have to pay attention. The Horton 9 had recessed air intakes. It was this craft, in flight, in which the Germans noted the low radar return. But, the aircraft which was going to first go into production was given to the Gotha Waggonwerke near the Jonas Valley. The pictures you are posting is the Gotha 229, not the Horton 9. Have Waynos ask his friends at Luft46.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join