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.
Originally posted by ignorant_ape
a skeptic site claims that the " nazi bell " prominent in nick cook`s book ` hunt for zero point ` and others is infact the support structure of a cooling tower
read the articlke : here
leaving aside the authours rabid ` blame it on Bielek ` attitude [ i think its a pre requistite of the site - LOL ]
he does make many valid points
of course the big question he does not attempt to answer is :
" what was a heat exchanger of that size needed for on that site ? "
but all in all , IMHO a good job - and one that leaves far fewer gaps than cooks interpretations
Originally posted by Count
I'm at work now so I can't check the books, but wasn't "the bell" the actual apparatus which was tested, and not the henge-like structure?
ie. even if the henge is shown to be a cooling tower base, that in itself doesn't mean that the bell experiment itself didn't exist. So it wouldn't be correct to say that "Nazi Bell" is debunked. Or am I picking nits?
Based on a quick read of the article linked above, it seems that the main 'beef' of the author is to show that others who have used Cook/Witkowski research have been too quick to state their theories as established facts etc. and not to say that the whole theory presented by C and W is false.
In my opinion having evidence of a power station located can be taken as proof that something requiring lots of power was done at the site, and the nature of it is still unknown to us.
I'm not quite sure what to make of the statement made by Gerold Schelm (the author of the article) that he had contacted Mr. Witkowski but "he was unable to produce any evidence so far". I couldn't find any information about the author with a quick Google search which wasn't in some way related to the article, so I don't know what his qualifications would be - but I don't find it at all surprising that an published author/researcher doesn't have time to answer all emails which demand proof or evidence. It could be that I'm reading too much from that single sentence, and (obviously) I'm one who "wants to believe"
I'll get back to this after I get off from work.
Originally posted by ignorant_ape
the main reason i went with the " nazi bell debunked " tagline was 1 to get attention , and 2 to highlight the fact that the prime " evidence " for the " bell " was the anomylous ` henge ` .
to paraphrase C&W " we dont know what the henge is ................. so it must be evidence of some experiment for which there is no other evidence "
the cooling toower theory shows just how little research C&W seem to have done
and while i am kicking cook - has he not heard of cites , idexes , foot notes or ANY of the common tricks good authors use to help us objectivly read thier books ???
Originally posted by ignorant_ape
a skeptic site claims that the " nazi bell " prominent in nick cook`s book ` hunt for zero point ` and others is infact the support structure of a cooling tower
read the articlke : here
leaving aside the authours rabid ` blame it on Bielek ` attitude [ i think its a pre requistite of the site - LOL ]
he does make many valid points
of course the big question he does not attempt to answer is :
" what was a heat exchanger of that size needed for on that site ? "
but all in all , IMHO a good job - and one that leaves far fewer gaps than cooks interpretations
Originally posted by Count
I'm at work now so I can't check the books, but wasn't "the bell" the actual apparatus which was tested, and not the henge-like structure?
ie. even if the henge is shown to be a cooling tower base, that in itself doesn't mean that the bell experiment itself didn't exist. So it wouldn't be correct to say that "Nazi Bell" is debunked. Or am I picking nits?
Based on a quick read of the article linked above, it seems that the main 'beef' of the author is to show that others who have used Cook/Witkowski research have been too quick to state their theories as established facts etc. and not to say that the whole theory presented by C and W is false.
In my opinion having evidence of a power station located can be taken as proof that something requiring lots of power was done at the site, and the nature of it is still unknown to us.
I'm not quite sure what to make of the statement made by Gerold Schelm (the author of the article) that he had contacted Mr. Witkowski but "he was unable to produce any evidence so far". I couldn't find any information about the author with a quick Google search which wasn't in some way related to the article, so I don't know what his qualifications would be - but I don't find it at all surprising that an published author/researcher doesn't have time to answer all emails which demand proof or evidence. It could be that I'm reading too much from that single sentence, and (obviously) I'm one who "wants to believe"
I'll get back to this after I get off from work.
I'm at work now so I can't check the books, but wasn't "the bell" the actual apparatus which was tested, and not the henge-like structure?
ie. even if the henge is shown to be a cooling tower base, that in itself doesn't mean that the bell experiment itself didn't exist. So it wouldn't be correct to say that "Nazi Bell" is debunked. Or am I picking nits?
Based on a quick read of the article linked above, it seems that the main 'beef' of the author is to show that others who have used Cook/Witkowski research have been too quick to state their theories as established facts etc. and not to say that the whole theory presented by C and W is false.
In my opinion having evidence of a power station located can be taken as proof that something requiring lots of power was done at the site, and the nature of it is still unknown to us.
I'm not quite sure what to make of the statement made by Gerold Schelm (the author of the article) that he had contacted Mr. Witkowski but "he was unable to produce any evidence so far". I couldn't find any information about the author with a quick Google search which wasn't in some way related to the article, so I don't know what his qualifications would be - but I don't find it at all surprising that an published author/researcher doesn't have time to answer all emails which demand proof or evidence.
Originally posted by DCFusion
Very interesting find. The article does, in my opinion, clearly point out that the 'Henge' is a cooling tower base, and not an apparatus used to support the nazi bell.
According the author of this article, Nick Cook made claims such as the bolts on top of the Henge being used to suspend the Nazi Bell when it deffinately appears that they were actually used to support the cooling tower.
However, I guess the argument could be made that the Nazis needed some kind of structure to support the 'Bell' and that the base of a cooling tower fit the bill.
Just because something is typically used for a specific purpose, does not mean it is always used for that purpose. I mean, who hasn't used a butter knife as a flat head screw driver when in a pinch
But, I think that the author of the article debunked Nick Cooks claims about the Henge being used to support the Nazi Bell (but it doesn't necessarily mean the Nazi Bell never existed).
EDIT: Spelling
[edit on 11/28/2005 by DCFusion]
Originally posted by ignorant_ape
the main reason i went with the " nazi bell debunked " tagline was 1 to get attention , and 2 to highlight the fact that the prime " evidence " for the " bell " was the anomylous ` henge ` .
to paraphrase C&W " we dont know what the henge is ................. so it must be evidence of some experiment for which there is no other evidence "
the cooling toower theory shows just how little research C&W seem to have done
and while i am kicking cook - has he not heard of cites , idexes , foot notes or ANY of the common tricks good authors use to help us objectivly read thier books ???
Originally posted by bank teller
That's just a point to consider. He also saw no ceramic tiles. They might have all been stripped away but then again I think it is Witkowski who claims that they were there to see. So, if so, where are they now? It is true that the Henge structure might have had a duel role. However, what is so clear is that its structure is a duplicate of the existing cooling towers.
Originally posted by mad scientist
Originally posted by bank teller
The Bell testing room was several hundred meters underground in a mine shaft, which has been flooded ever since. So it is impossible to check it out unless your a qualified mixed gas diver.
The ' Henge' structure was only a minor part of the story and is probably so prominent because it is the only thing left of the facility that he could take a picture of. It would be a mistake focus on this structure, especially when he makes it clear in his book the testing was conducted deep underground in the mine shaft.
So like, if the main testing was done down the bowels of a now flooded mine shaft, how do we know it was done down the mine shaft since it's all flooded?
Did I miss something or what? Where is it written in anyone's book or report that someone knows for sure it was done deep underground? And, when did those shafts get all filled up? Right after the war? It's too murky for me to make sense of.....so far....I don't think even Witkowski went into a flooded mine shaft.....
fred