robert arndt wrote:


What? "Projekt _Saucer_"?!? ROTFLOL!! Why the **** would the SS name
the project "Saucer" - that isn't a German word!


That is a postwar English translation, sorry. Should be "Projekt
Flugkreisel".


Translating "Flugkreisel" as "saucer" ... cute. If they translated the
rest of the Nazi documents equally accurate, it would explain a lot :-(.



As far as I understand the information recieved by the Thule/Vril
mediums they were instructed to construct a flight machine only. Some
of the RFZ and Vril photos clearly show MGs but I am not certain about
the MK-108 claims. I can't tell from the photos given if that
protruding gun is a 30mm cannon. Anyway, the Germans certainly would
have tried arming some even though their type of flight made them
useless as fighters.


High speed and manoeverability made them "useless" as fighters? Hey,
the Nazis sure set their requirements rather high, didn't they ;-)?



Then why mention "certain developments in the Third Reich at the close
of WW2" in Project Bluebook? It is an official document and they
certainly aren't referring to a Me-262 when comparing Reich technology
to '60s sightings of alien disc craft. Second, the USAF denied the
Flugelrads for 51 years... then suddenly admitted the Germans had them
in 1996... "but that they were highly unstable". Sorry, we get the
admission but no photos of any kind or flight footage (which the USAF
certainly has).


"certainly" has? Have you _seen_ the footage? If not, how can you say
"certainly"??



No, you are full of ****


Finally!! I began to wonder how long it would take to draw a real
flame :-)!

since Lockheed and Northrop fly such black
budget craft today.


Again, how do you know? ... Oh yes, I know, it's "all over the
internet, so it must be true!" LOL!

What flew over Belgium in the early '90s was a
military aircraft and it is photographed, witnesses by hundreds, and
confirmed by civilian radar, military radar, Fighter radar, and even
spy sat. Note the craft has no jet engines, so what is it flying on
Andreas?


The "best" photo, which the "UFO community" has been distributing,
shows three blobs of light in the night sky - and _nothing else! No
structures, no background to determine scale, _nothing_! So how the
**** do you know how this craft was powered?! The lights could as well
come from (and probably _did_ come from) a simple ultralight aircraft
(which is _indeed_ not jet-powered ;-) ).


[...]
You lie Andreas.


When?? I admit that I provoked you with sarcastic remarks, but _lies_?
No, sorry, there were none.

If you examined the files, photos, flight footage,
you are the kind of person who would STILL DENY the evidence.


Have you _seen_ the files, photos, etc.? How can you know they will
support your claims? Just because you say so?? Your behaviour confirms
_exactly_ what I said - conspiracy nuts like you are _so sure_ that
they are right, that _every_ evidence which doesn't fit into their
views is simply dismissed as being incomplete or faked.

And BTW, all I need to "believe" is film or photo evidence, which
several independent experts confirm as genuine and un-"doctored".

I pity you.
Which person is more decieved- the one who only believes "official"
history or the one that believes we've been lied to?
Time is on my side...


Do you live forever ;-)?


Andreas