Vril 7 at Arado Brandedburg '44/'45

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

Andreas Parsch wrote in message ...
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 :-(.

The postwar mistranslation of course comes from Rudolf Lusar's account
in "German Secret Weapons of the Second World War (1959) and to a
greater extent W.A. Harbinson's books "Genesis", "Inception", etc...
In Germany at the time the craft were known under many different terms
for the different research. BMW's craft were "Flugelrads", the early
Thule/Vril designs were "RundFlugZeugs", and the others
"Flugkreisels". What is so hard to understand about that?



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 ;-)?

Their speed was straight-line acceleration and they were restricted to
maneuvering at only three different angles due to the operation of the
Thule Triebwerke. Added to this was no armament. So, what kind of
fighter could it be? AFAIK, the only disc used for a mission was the
Haunebu II that was in contact with the German raider Atlantis and the
DoStra version that was used for recon, briefly. I understand it was
escorted by conventional fighters upon take-off and landing.



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"??

First, let me address the fact that you keep ignoring my the FACTS
that the USAF ADMITTED the Flugelrad craft in 1996. May I remind you
yet again that they denied the craft even existed for 51 years. The
USAAF that became the USAF also has plenty of documentation and
footage of the Feuerball weapon from the 415th NFS. That too is a FACT
that you can't dispute. So where are the files and disclosure on those
craft? Are you telling me the USAF admits these craft but has
absolutely no photographic proof of them or flight footage? They have
everything and if you don't think so look up the story of the two USAF
reporters that have come forward to describe the German discs that
were seen at MacDill AFB back in the '60s. They saw they them,
photographed them, and were given access to MacDill's archives which
showed the German craft in flight.
It is obvious that you don't want to accept this... for what reason I
don't know.
I think everyone here would love to see everything the USAF has under
wraps from 1945-present. The true history is way more interesting than
that out of date, misleading textbook nonsense.



No, you are full of ****


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

I apologize for the comment, it was inappropriate. It just bugs me the
way people are so in denial about advanced aircraft. Its that old fear
of the unknown thing. Why exactly can't we handle a technology that
produces a rotating magnetic field and one that uses gravity to do all
the work? Mankinds solution to flight thus far has been using engines
that go AGAINST nature. We use powerful explosive forces in jets and
rockets to PUSH air and spacecraft through the atmosphere and space.
Nature is the opposite and Schauberger, Coler, and the rest of the
people at Lockheed & Northrop seem to have grasped that idea and have
working craft that far exceed conventional jet aircraft.
Maybe you look at the F-22, MiG-39, Su-47, Gripen, Eurofighter,
Rafale, B-2, F-117, etc... as state-of-the-art military technolgy, but
I do not. I look at them like I would a biplane prior to WW1. These
craft are obsolete.

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!

No, common sense tells us that there are more advanced aircraft flying
since the B-2 was unveiled in the late '80s. Do you honestly believe
the only thing we're working on now is that lame F-22 and F-35? What
has the USAF, NRO, NSA, CIA, etc... been doing covertly for over 2
decades?


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 ;-) ).

The "UFO community" takes advantage of everything for its agenda,
agreed. But the Belgian Wave was reported all over the world and the
photos published everywhere. The photos do not just show 3 blobs of
light. They show a distinct black triangle with 3 non-jet sources of
propulsion. And there weren't just one craft but several which flew in
formation. The craft sped off as the F-16s approached and headed back
towards the UK. Can you say Bae Warton? But before you go on about
doubting electrogravitic propulsion why then has the USAF also
admitted testing of a FFX or Field-Effects demonstrator back in the
'90s? Funny how electrogravitics surfaced and then a brief pause
before the USAF admitted testing FFX. Yet a decade later, there is
still a general news blackout on this testing. We are provided no
info, no photos, nothing...
[...]
You lie Andreas.


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

You lied when you said the A.S.6 was the only circular/disc craft to
fly in the Third Reich. It is fairly obvious (at least to me) that the
Flugelrads flew as well as the Feuerball weapon that plagued the 415th
NFS. Schauberger's Repulsin motors also achieved flight in the
laboratory and may have been installed on a larger scale in one of the
other German disc programs (read "Hunt for Zero Point"). Then there
are the controversial RFZ,Vril, and Haunebu craft...

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 would be more satisified to check out Wright Patterson's storage
facilities because that where the US story begins. I doubt they
destroyed the German discs seeing how we have preserved the Go-229,
Ba-349, He-162, etc...

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 ;-)?

No, but I will probably be here in 2020 when the files are opened. Maybe you will too and we will see who was right and who was wrong. Fair enough?
Andreas

Rob

robert arndt wrote:

First, let me address the fact that you keep ignoring my the FACTS
that the USAF ADMITTED the Flugelrad craft in 1996. May I remind you
yet again that they denied the craft even existed for 51 years.

Could you please quote the USAF report? Thanks. Anyway, even if the
Flügelrad actually flew, none of the web sources I saw (Unfortunately,
I don't have any other sources on it) mention any of the outlandish
alien or occult propulsion schemes. The Flügelrad seems to be
effectively a very fancy turbojet-powered autogyro.

The USAAF that became the USAF also has plenty of documentation and
footage of the Feuerball weapon from the 415th NFS. That too is a FACT
that you can't dispute. So where are the files and disclosure on those
craft? Are you telling me the USAF admits these craft but has
absolutely no photographic proof of them or flight footage? They have
everything and if you don't think so look up the story of the two USAF
reporters that have come forward to describe the German discs that
were seen at MacDill AFB back in the '60s. They saw they them,
photographed them, and were given access to MacDill's archives which
showed the German craft in flight.

I know this story. And where _are_ those photographs? Without them,
it's just a story, nothing more. I could produce a new story of this
type from scatch every week. So why should I believe it? If someone
claims they saw some extremely unusual thing, but can't produce _any_
kind of hard evidence, why should I believe the tale?

It is obvious that you don't want to accept this... for what reason I
don't know.

Because of complete lack of hard proof. Like provably genuine
photographs and/or reports. Just saying the USAF has it all under wraps
isn't enough for me - sorry.


I apologize for the comment, it was inappropriate.

Accepted.

It just bugs me the
way people are so in denial about advanced aircraft. Its that old fear
of the unknown thing. Why exactly can't we handle a technology that
produces a rotating magnetic field and one that uses gravity to do all
the work? Mankinds solution to flight thus far has been using engines
that go AGAINST nature. We use powerful explosive forces in jets and
rockets to PUSH air and spacecraft through the atmosphere and space.
Nature is the opposite and Schauberger, Coler, and the rest of the
people at Lockheed & Northrop seem to have grasped that idea and have
working craft that far exceed conventional jet aircraft.

If it's so easy, and if aerospace companies employ "gravity drives" (or
"electrogravitic" ones) routinely in secret projects, why do you think
that the millions of physicists in universities and research labs
around the world haven't come up with any testable and verifiable
theory of "electrogravitics"? There are many _very_ smart theoretical
physicists, who have tried in vain for 70+ years to develop a viable
theory of quantum-gravity and to bring gravity "in line" with other
basic forces (which would presumably lead to something one could call
"electrogravitics"). Do you think, they are just too stupid, because
all the _really_ good scientists work in aerospace? Or do think, it's
all "covered-up"? The second notion is completely ridiculous - there is
absolutely _no_ way anyone, let alone the USAF which has no influence
in non-US universities, could prevent the extremely radid spread of
such a discovery in the physics community.
In short, you can't keep a law of nature a secret.

Maybe you look at the F-22, MiG-39, Su-47, Gripen, Eurofighter,
Rafale, B-2, F-117, etc... as state-of-the-art military technolgy, but
I do not. I look at them like I would a biplane prior to WW1. These
craft are obsolete.

And why the hell is the USAF investing _billions_ of $$$ into the
"obsolete" F-22?? I know that the USAF is frequently blamed for wasting
money, but what you say would really push this blame to a new level ;-)!


No, common sense tells us that there are more advanced aircraft flying
since the B-2 was unveiled in the late '80s. Do you honestly believe
the only thing we're working on now is that lame F-22 and F-35? What
has the USAF, NRO, NSA, CIA, etc... been doing covertly for over 2
decades?

I can't see any real argument in that last paragraph. Just because
_you_ think that the B-2 etc. are outdated, it _must_ be true that more
advanced aircraft are developed? I'm sorry, but I'd prefer a bit more
tangible evidence.


The "UFO community" takes advantage of everything for its agenda,
agreed. But the Belgian Wave was reported all over the world and the
photos published everywhere. The photos do not just show 3 blobs of
light. They show a distinct black triangle with 3 non-jet sources of
propulsion.

Please show me a photo where all this can be clearly identified. Thanks.

And there weren't just one craft but several which flew in
formation. The craft sped off as the F-16s approached and headed back
towards the UK. Can you say Bae Warton? But before you go on about
doubting electrogravitic propulsion

Indeed I doubt it, see above ;-).

why then has the USAF also
admitted testing of a FFX or Field-Effects demonstrator back in the
'90s?

Did they? Please provide a source for this claim. A _USAF_ source where
they admit it.

BTW, not even Google comes up with anything on this - which is rather
unusual, because normally no claim is too weird that some nut wouldn't
post it on his website.


You lied when you said the A.S.6 was the only circular/disc craft to
fly in the Third Reich. It is fairly obvious (at least to me) that the
Flugelrads flew as well as the Feuerball weapon that plagued the 415th
NFS. Schauberger's Repulsin motors also achieved flight in the
laboratory and may have been installed on a larger scale in one of the
other German disc programs (read "Hunt for Zero Point"). Then there
are the controversial RFZ,Vril, and Haunebu craft...

It may be "fairly obvious" to you, but it certainly isn't for me. The
A.S.6 is the _only_ aircraft in the whole collection, which undoubtedly
existed and flew (albeit not very successfully). All the other claims
range from the possible to the extremely esoteric. I didn't _lie_, I
just stated an opinion which happened to differ from yours. In the
worst case, I was mistaken - still not a _lie_.


Do you live forever ;-)?

No, but I will probably be here in 2020 when the files are opened.
Maybe you will too and we will see who was right and who was wrong.
Fair enough?

Fair enough ... provided that you'll actually believe what's in the
files, even if they _don't_ contain anything on flying saucers.

Andreas

Andreas Parsch wrote in message ...
robert arndt wrote:

First, let me address the fact that you keep ignoring my the FACTS
that the USAF ADMITTED the Flugelrad craft in 1996. May I remind you
yet again that they denied the craft even existed for 51 years.

Could you please quote the USAF report? Thanks. Anyway, even if the
Flügelrad actually flew, none of the web sources I saw (Unfortunately,
I don't have any other sources on it) mention any of the outlandish
alien or occult propulsion schemes. The Flügelrad seems to be
effectively a very fancy turbojet-powered autogyro.

Jim Wilson, writing for Popular Mechanics, obtained his DoD reports
through the Freedom of Information Act after certain military
documents were forcibly declassified by a congressional mandate in the
mid-to-late-90s. He wrote several articles on the US "Projects
Silverbug" and the "nuclear flying saucer", the LRV (Lenticular
Re-entry Vehicle) as well as "Roswell Plus 50" and their origin firmly
placed with the German discs of WW2. His information obtained through
the Freedom of Information Act (which the DoD frantically tried to
restrict to the defense industry)places German disc engineers at
Wright Patterson (back then Wright Field) in 1946 as well as the
Horten brothers. The Horten presence can be verified through the
declassified "Operation Paperclip" documents. The documents state that
the Hortens were released from UK custody in 1945 for work in the US
in 1946. The articles contain information on the USAF desire to
replicate German disc aircraft at Wright Patterson and the continuing
development of disc offensive systems. Horten disc models, not flying
wings, were windtunnel tested in the US in 1946. The articles also
mention German wartime construction of disc aircraft including the
Flugelrads that were in their words... "highly unstable".
I'm sure you can contact PM and request their DoD sources for their
articles, or just search for them yourself through the Freedom of
Information Act.

The USAAF that became the USAF also has plenty of documentation and
footage of the Feuerball weapon from the 415th NFS. That too is a FACT
that you can't dispute. So where are the files and disclosure on those
craft? Are you telling me the USAF admits these craft but has
absolutely no photographic proof of them or flight footage? They have
everything and if you don't think so look up the story of the two USAF
reporters that have come forward to describe the German discs that
were seen at MacDill AFB back in the '60s. They saw they them,
photographed them, and were given access to MacDill's archives which
showed the German craft in flight.

I know this story. And where _are_ those photographs? Without them,
it's just a story, nothing more. I could produce a new story of this
type from scatch every week. So why should I believe it? If someone
claims they saw some extremely unusual thing, but can't produce _any_
kind of hard evidence, why should I believe the tale?

How exactly were the two reporters going to leave MacDill AFB with
their cameras and photographic evidence when they were seized and
kicked off base? Anyway, you can at least verify that the next month
issue of the USAF in-house magazine, the one that was supposed to
feature the prototype aircraft at MacDill AFB, was NOT published. Not
just the article... but the entire month's magazine.

It is obvious that you don't want to accept this... for what reason I
don't know.

Because of complete lack of hard proof. Like provably genuine
photographs and/or reports. Just saying the USAF has it all under wraps
isn't enough for me - sorry.

I disagree based on the volume of consistant leaks of information and
declassified information through the Freedom of Information Act.
Unlike the UFO conspiracy people I do not believe the evidence is "out
there" I believe it has always been internalized, compartmentalized by
the USAF, DoD, CIA, NSA, NRO, ad infinitum...


I apologize for the comment, it was inappropriate.

Accepted.

It just bugs me the
way people are so in denial about advanced aircraft. Its that old fear
of the unknown thing. Why exactly can't we handle a technology that
produces a rotating magnetic field and one that uses gravity to do all
the work? Mankinds solution to flight thus far has been using engines
that go AGAINST nature. We use powerful explosive forces in jets and
rockets to PUSH air and spacecraft through the atmosphere and space.
Nature is the opposite and Schauberger, Coler, and the rest of the
people at Lockheed & Northrop seem to have grasped that idea and have
working craft that far exceed conventional jet aircraft.

If it's so easy, and if aerospace companies employ "gravity drives" (or
"electrogravitic" ones) routinely in secret projects, why do you think
that the millions of physicists in universities and research labs
around the world haven't come up with any testable and verifiable
theory of "electrogravitics"? There are many _very_ smart theoretical
physicists, who have tried in vain for 70+ years to develop a viable
theory of quantum-gravity and to bring gravity "in line" with other
basic forces (which would presumably lead to something one could call
"electrogravitics"). Do you think, they are just too stupid, because
all the _really_ good scientists work in aerospace? Or do think, it's
all "covered-up"? The second notion is completely ridiculous - there is
absolutely _no_ way anyone, let alone the USAF which has no influence
in non-US universities, could prevent the extremely radid spread of
such a discovery in the physics community.
In short, you can't keep a law of nature a secret.

You can keep military projects secret even when information leaks out.
T. Townsend Brown proposed electrogravitic propulsion to the USAF back
in 1956 and had working models of his craft plus published findings. I
find it amazing that physicists on the outside can't seem to or are
reluctant to participate in this type of research. However, it is
undrstandable if they don't have the type of coordinated programs the
people at Lockheed and Northrop have. They certainly don't have the
advantage of German disc propulsion knowledge nor decades of
experimentation from Wright Patterson forward. And, most importantly,
the funding. Current costs of just one TR-3b ASTRA (if it does exist)
is said to be $3 billion!!! That's almost the cost of 3 B-2 Spirits
which by themselves are $1.3 billion and ironically enough are said to
incorporate the very technology you deny- electrogravitics!

Maybe you look at the F-22, MiG-39, Su-47, Gripen, Eurofighter,
Rafale, B-2, F-117, etc... as state-of-the-art military technolgy, but
I do not. I look at them like I would a biplane prior to WW1. These
craft are obsolete.

And why the hell is the USAF investing _billions_ of $$$ into the
"obsolete" F-22?? I know that the USAF is frequently blamed for wasting
money, but what you say would really push this blame to a new level ;-)!

Hey, we agree on this too. I have voiced my opinion on the lousy F-22
and ridiculous costs to the US taxpayer many times over. It IS an
extreme waste... but conventional technology DOES form the backbone of
our arsenal. From what I gather the US suffers from the same thing the
Germans did in WW2... that these electro-magnetic-gravitic systems are
only good for designs that are used for high altitude recon and
possibly for launching a few cruise missiles. They are practically
useless as fighter/strike aircraft and the loss of just one would be
costly. The other black budget craft seemed to be all bunched up in
UCAVs and other exotics (but not electrogravitic). The SR-75, TR-3a
Blackmanta, XR-7, AX-17, etc... use PDWs, Hydrogen Scramjets, or
conventional powerplants.

No, common sense tells us that there are more advanced aircraft flying
since the B-2 was unveiled in the late '80s. Do you honestly believe
the only thing we're working on now is that lame F-22 and F-35? What
has the USAF, NRO, NSA, CIA, etc... been doing covertly for over 2
decades?

I can't see any real argument in that last paragraph. Just because
_you_ think that the B-2 etc. are outdated, it _must_ be true that more
advanced aircraft are developed? I'm sorry, but I'd prefer a bit more
tangible evidence.

What more tangible evidence do you need than history? No great
military power in the world just "gives up" on R & D. The UK for
example is nowhere near the US in airpower. Yet they have the HALO and
other stealth aircraft out of Bae Warton. The UK MoD also admitted the
HALO after years of denial. Years when near-fatal air collision with
commercial aircraft were commonly reported. HALO is a delta the size
of a Hawk... but with no visible propulsion system. Are you telling me
that the British with their limited resources have an electrogravitic
aircraft in the air while the US with vast resources has none? That's
absurd. And there is persistant talk of the German Firefly II black
triangle. Despite US pressure on MBB not to develop the original
Firefly (Lampyridae) it seems the Germans didn't just give up their
stealth development program either.


The "UFO community" takes advantage of everything for its agenda,
agreed. But the Belgian Wave was reported all over the world and the
photos published everywhere. The photos do not just show 3 blobs of
light. They show a distinct black triangle with 3 non-jet sources of
propulsion.

Please show me a photo where all this can be clearly identified. Thanks.
Please spare the sarcasm for a moment. I can show you hundreds of
conventional aircraft filmed at night (like the F-117 and B-2) and you
couldn't distinguish them either. What is important in the BW
incidents is that the craft photographed don't match any propulsion
system around. According to various sources the TR-3b Astra matches
these images. The 3 blobs of light (which actually looks more like
fire) are the 3 maneuvering rockets, not the electrogravitic drive
itself.

And there weren't just one craft but several which flew in
formation. The craft sped off as the F-16s approached and headed back
towards the UK. Can you say Bae Warton? But before you go on about
doubting electrogravitic propulsion

Indeed I doubt it, see above ;-).

why then has the USAF also
admitted testing of a FFX or Field-Effects demonstrator back in the
'90s?

Did they? Please provide a source for this claim. A _USAF_ source where
they admit it.

I am trying to locate that source right now. It was back in the late
'90s, based on the LoFlyte demonstrator, but utilizing a field-effect
system.

BTW, not even Google comes up with anything on this - which is rather
unusual, because normally no claim is too weird that some nut wouldn't
post it on his website.

Google has thousands of hits on Field Effect propulsion,
Electrogravitics, and the German discs I mentioned... so what are you
talking about? You can also look up US disc projects Silverbug, LRV,
etc...


You lied when you said the A.S.6 was the only circular/disc craft to
fly in the Third Reich. It is fairly obvious (at least to me) that the
Flugelrads flew as well as the Feuerball weapon that plagued the 415th
NFS. Schauberger's Repulsin motors also achieved flight in the
laboratory and may have been installed on a larger scale in one of the
other German disc programs (read "Hunt for Zero Point"). Then there
are the controversial RFZ,Vril, and Haunebu craft...

It may be "fairly obvious" to you, but it certainly isn't for me. The
A.S.6 is the _only_ aircraft in the whole collection, which undoubtedly
existed and flew (albeit not very successfully). All the other claims
range from the possible to the extremely esoteric. I didn't _lie_, I
just stated an opinion which happened to differ from yours. In the
worst case, I was mistaken - still not a _lie_.


Do you live forever ;-)?

No, but I will probably be here in 2020 when the files are opened.
Maybe you will too and we will see who was right and who was wrong.
Fair enough?

Fair enough ... provided that you'll actually believe what's in the
files, even if they _don't_ contain anything on flying saucers.

Andreas

OK, deal.

Rob

robert arndt wrote:

Jim Wilson, writing for Popular Mechanics, obtained his DoD reports
through the Freedom of Information Act after certain military
documents were forcibly declassified by a congressional mandate in the
mid-to-late-90s. He wrote several articles on the US "Projects
Silverbug" and the "nuclear flying saucer", the LRV (Lenticular
Re-entry Vehicle) as well as "Roswell Plus 50" and their origin firmly
placed with the German discs of WW2. His information obtained through
the Freedom of Information Act (which the DoD frantically tried to
restrict to the defense industry)places German disc engineers at
Wright Patterson (back then Wright Field) in 1946 as well as the
Horten brothers. The Horten presence can be verified through the
declassified "Operation Paperclip" documents. The documents state that
the Hortens were released from UK custody in 1945 for work in the US
in 1946. The articles contain information on the USAF desire to
replicate German disc aircraft at Wright Patterson and the continuing
development of disc offensive systems. Horten disc models, not flying
wings, were windtunnel tested in the US in 1946. The articles also
mention German wartime construction of disc aircraft including the
Flugelrads that were in their words... "highly unstable".
I'm sure you can contact PM and request their DoD sources for their
articles, or just search for them yourself through the Freedom of
Information Act.


PM doesn't have the best reputation as a serious magazine. Anyway, you
say nothing on the Flügelrad except "The articles also mention German
wartime construction ...". Whether theis "mention" was also based on
USAF documents, or whether it was thrown in just for effect (which
would _not_ be untypical for PM), can't be said without further
information.

Just for the record, I know that "Project Silverbug" existed (as a
_project_, not necessarily as a flying prototype), and wind tunnel
testing of Horten design isn't a far-fetched claim by any standard. So
I have no doubt that Wilson indeed based much of his writing on
official USAF/DOD files. _Maybe_ this included the "Flügelrad" claim.

I know this story. And where _are_ those photographs? [...]

How exactly were the two reporters going to leave MacDill AFB with
their cameras and photographic evidence when they were seized and
kicked off base?


First, they were allowed to see and photograph the discs, and then
they are kicked off base? Either something _is_ secret or it isn't -
you don't change your mind every few minute. Furthermore, every USAF
officier, who would have known about the flying discs, would also have
known that this subject was _extremely_ sensitive. So exlanation like
"He showed the discs, but was then stopped by his superiors" don't
make sense - you don't show your most sensitive secrets to
photographers without having made _really_ sure _in advance_ that it's
ok to do so.

Anyway, my point remains: Without any photos, it's just another story.

Anyway, you can at least verify that the next month
issue of the USAF in-house magazine, the one that was supposed to
feature the prototype aircraft at MacDill AFB, was NOT published. Not
just the article... but the entire month's magazine.


A coincidence ... which was apparently happily picked up by whoever
invented the "flying disc" story. If they just wanted to keep the
saucers secret, they had simply printed a different article.


Because of complete lack of hard proof. Like provably genuine
photographs and/or reports. Just saying the USAF has it all under wraps
isn't enough for me - sorry.

I disagree based on the volume of consistant leaks of information and
declassified information through the Freedom of Information Act.
Unlike the UFO conspiracy people I do not believe the evidence is "out
there" I believe it has always been internalized, compartmentalized by
the USAF, DoD, CIA, NSA, NRO, ad infinitum...


"Leaks of information" are just rumours, no proof. And I have yet to
see officially declassified information, which is evidence for any of
your wilder claims.


["electrogravitics" ...]
In short, you can't keep a law of nature a secret.


You can keep military projects secret even when information leaks out.
T. Townsend Brown proposed electrogravitic propulsion to the USAF back
in 1956 and had working models of his craft plus published findings. I
find it amazing that physicists on the outside can't seem to or are
reluctant to participate in this type of research.


Several physicists have tried to replicate some "anti-gravity"
experiments. None has succeeded. Two reasons appear possible:
1) They are all not bright enough
2) The original claims are bogus

Make you choice. I've made mine already (influenced by the fact that I
have a university degree in physics myself).

However, it is
undrstandable if they don't have the type of coordinated programs the
people at Lockheed and Northrop have. They certainly don't have the
advantage of German disc propulsion knowledge nor decades of
experimentation from Wright Patterson forward. And, most importantly,
the funding.


First: Theoretical physics doesn't need so much funding - only time. I
didn't say a university has to build an "electrogravitic" machine -
they just should have come up by now with the theory _how_ to build one.

Second: Some of the "electrongravity" pioneers, including Brown, claim
that building a small demonstration device didn't take much resources.

Current costs of just one TR-3b ASTRA (if it does exist)
is said to be $3 billion!!! That's almost the cost of 3 B-2 Spirits
which by themselves are $1.3 billion and ironically enough are said to
incorporate the very technology you deny- electrogravitics!


"is said to be" ... "are said to incorporate" ... Hell, I _know_ that
these things are _said_! But I won#t believe it just because it is
_said_! Frankly, I regard specifically the claim that the B-2 has
"electrogravitic" propulsion is 100% pure bovine excrement!


No, common sense tells us that there are more advanced aircraft flying
since the B-2 was unveiled in the late '80s. Do you honestly believe
the only thing we're working on now is that lame F-22 and F-35? What
has the USAF, NRO, NSA, CIA, etc... been doing covertly for over 2
decades?

I can't see any real argument in that last paragraph. Just because
_you_ think that the B-2 etc. are outdated, it _must_ be true that more
advanced aircraft are developed? I'm sorry, but I'd prefer a bit more
tangible evidence.


What more tangible evidence do you need than history? No great
military power in the world just "gives up" on R & D.


Huh??? I did _not_ say that the U.S. (or anyone else) gave up R&D!! I
only said I don't believe that they successfully developed "exotic"
propulsion systems. _Of course_ R&D is continuing, but hopefully
mainly on more promising topics.

The UK for
example is nowhere near the US in airpower. Yet they have the HALO and
other stealth aircraft out of Bae Warton. The UK MoD also admitted the
HALO after years of denial. Years when near-fatal air collision with
commercial aircraft were commonly reported. HALO is a delta the size
of a Hawk... but with no visible propulsion system.


If you have photographs of this HALO, where it can be clearly seen
that no "conventional" propulsion system is used, please share them
with us.

Are you telling me
that the British with their limited resources have an electrogravitic
aircraft in the air while the US with vast resources has none?


Neither the US nor the UK has a working electrogravitic aircraft.

That's
absurd. And there is persistant talk of the German Firefly II black
triangle. Despite US pressure on MBB not to develop the original
Firefly (Lampyridae) it seems the Germans didn't just give up their
stealth development program either.


"Persistant talk" ... there we go again! The talk can be as persistent
as possible, it's still no evidence! Why do you think something
becomes more likely to be true the more people talk about it?!?! When
I surf the web, the opposite sometimes seems to be nearer to the truth.

["Belgian Wave" UFOs]
Please spare the sarcasm for a moment. I can show you hundreds of
conventional aircraft filmed at night (like the F-117 and B-2) and you
couldn't distinguish them either.


Indeed. That was my point.

What is important in the BW
incidents is that the craft photographed don't match any propulsion
system around.


Is my English _that_ bad?! I asked you to show me a photograph were
you can positively see that the aircraft doesn't use a conventional
propulsion system! As you said _a single sentence earlier_, a night
time photo won't do!


According to various sources the TR-3b Astra matches
these images. The 3 blobs of light (which actually looks more like
fire) are the 3 maneuvering rockets, not the electrogravitic drive
itself.


"Various sources" ... no, I don't say it again.


why then has the USAF also
admitted testing of a FFX or Field-Effects demonstrator back in the
'90s?

Did they? Please provide a source for this claim. A _USAF_ source where
they admit it.


I am trying to locate that source right now. It was back in the late
'90s, based on the LoFlyte demonstrator, but utilizing a field-effect
system.


I know LoFlyte, but never heard it in connection with a field-effect
propulsion system.



Google has thousands of hits on Field Effect propulsion,
Electrogravitics, and the German discs I mentioned... so what are you
talking about? You can also look up US disc projects Silverbug, LRV,
etc...


But nothing on "Field effects demonstrator" or many of its variations.


No, but I will probably be here in 2020 when the files are opened.
Maybe you will too and we will see who was right and who was wrong.
Fair enough?

Fair enough ... provided that you'll actually believe what's in the
files, even if they _don't_ contain anything on flying saucers.

Andreas


OK, deal.


Andreas

(robert arndt) wrote in message . com...
Andreas Parsch wrote in message ...
robert arndt wrote:

First, let me address the fact that you keep ignoring my the FACTS
that the USAF ADMITTED the Flugelrad craft in 1996. May I remind you
yet again that they denied the craft even existed for 51 years.

Could you please quote the USAF report? Thanks. Anyway, even if the
Flügelrad actually flew, none of the web sources I saw (Unfortunately,
I don't have any other sources on it) mention any of the outlandish
alien or occult propulsion schemes. The Flügelrad seems to be
effectively a very fancy turbojet-powered autogyro.

Jim Wilson, writing for Popular Mechanics, obtained his DoD reports
through the Freedom of Information Act after certain military
documents were forcibly declassified by a congressional mandate in the
mid-to-late-90s. He wrote several articles on the US "Projects
Silverbug" and the "nuclear flying saucer", the LRV (Lenticular
Re-entry Vehicle) as well as "Roswell Plus 50" and their origin firmly
placed with the German discs of WW2. His information obtained through
the Freedom of Information Act (which the DoD frantically tried to
restrict to the defense industry)places German disc engineers at
Wright Patterson (back then Wright Field) in 1946 as well as the
Horten brothers. The Horten presence can be verified through the
declassified "Operation Paperclip" documents. The documents state that
the Hortens were released from UK custody in 1945 for work in the US
in 1946. The articles contain information on the USAF desire to
replicate German disc aircraft at Wright Patterson and the continuing
development of disc offensive systems. Horten disc models, not flying
wings, were windtunnel tested in the US in 1946. The articles also
mention German wartime construction of disc aircraft including the
Flugelrads that were in their words... "highly unstable".
I'm sure you can contact PM and request their DoD sources for their
articles, or just search for them yourself through the Freedom of
Information Act.


One "VTOL" suacer that got to the preliminary designe stage was this
Focke Wulf "VTOL"
http://www.luft46.com/fw/fwvtol.html

I have no doubt that the device would work and is superior to the tilt
rotor concept and its troublesome gear boxes. It seems to have ducted
a gas turbines' exhaust to power a large contra rotating ducted
propellor in the center of the "saucer" with the tubine then being
deflected to provide forward propulsion.

Indeed if built today it would be excedingly usefull as unlike a
helicopter or tilt rotor it could manouever along side a skysraper or
land in tight spots free of the dangers of rotor impact.

From:


One "VTOL" suacer that got to the preliminary designe stage was this
Focke Wulf "VTOL"
http://www.luft46.com/fw/fwvtol.html

I have no doubt that the device would work and is superior to the tilt rotor
concept and its troublesome gear boxes. It seems to have ducted a gas
turbines' exhaust to power a large contra rotating ducted propellor in the
center of the "saucer" with the tubine then being
deflected to provide forward propulsion.

Indeed if built today it would be excedingly usefull as unlike a helicopter or
tilt rotor it could manouever along side a skysraper or land in tight spots
free of the dangers of rotor impact.


And do what? The drawing shows a vehicle that would carry a crew of one and NO
payload.

Next time you are in the Ft. Eustis VA area go look at the saucer shaped
aircraft (Avro?) they have. It could carry 2 men, hover all of 2 or 3 feet off
the ground and manoeuver rather nicely. Other than low hover it could not fly
and wobbled a lot. Unlike the Nazi ideas this saucer WAS built and proved how
complicated things really were. The downward ducted fan concept has been tried
several times and not one vehicle had the performance to justify proceeding to
an operational prototype.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

"B2431" wrote

Next time you are in the Ft. Eustis VA area go look at the saucer shaped
aircraft (Avro?) they have. It could carry 2 men, hover all of 2 or 3 feet
off
the ground and manoeuver rather nicely. Other than low hover it could not
fly
and wobbled a lot. Unlike the Nazi ideas this saucer WAS built and proved
how
complicated things really were. The downward ducted fan concept has been
tried
several times and not one vehicle had the performance to justify
proceeding to
an operational prototype.


I've seen that beast. Looks evil to ride.

Pete

"B2431" wrote in message
...
From:


One "VTOL" suacer that got to the preliminary designe stage was
this
Focke Wulf "VTOL"
http://www.luft46.com/fw/fwvtol.html

I have no doubt that the device would work and is superior to the
tilt rotor
concept and its troublesome gear boxes. It seems to have ducted a
gas
turbines' exhaust to power a large contra rotating ducted propellor
in the
center of the "saucer" with the tubine then being
deflected to provide forward propulsion.

Indeed if built today it would be excedingly usefull as unlike a
helicopter or
tilt rotor it could manouever along side a skysraper or land in
tight spots
free of the dangers of rotor impact.


And do what? The drawing shows a vehicle that would carry a crew of
one and NO
payload.

It has one crew member. It could no doubt carry a warload or cargo in
the ring shaped fueselage or adated for more crew or passengers.



Next time you are in the Ft. Eustis VA area go look at the saucer
shaped
aircraft (Avro?) they have. It could carry 2 men, hover all of 2 or
3 feet off
the ground and manoeuver rather nicely. Other than low hover it
could not fly
and wobbled a lot. Unlike the Nazi ideas this saucer WAS built and
proved how
complicated things really were. The downward ducted fan concept has
been tried
several times and not one vehicle had the performance to justify
proceeding to
an operational prototype.

This Canadiarn AVRO device used the coanda induced airflow effect and
a sort of hover-craft effect which is somewhat different to this Focke
Wulf FW-VTOL concept which used a large rotor sised ducted fan in a
lenticular like body.

Most ducted fan lift concepts have worked and seem to have provided
forward speeds twice that of helicopters. A ducted fan of course is
not going to be as effective at providing lift as a full sized rotor.

Better to have a good hovering helicoper and a poor crusing vehicle
than a poor hovering VTOL craft and an average cruising vechicle.
Hence aprt from the Harrier helicopters are the only VTOLs in service.

As I pointed out however such a vehicle might have advantages in
closed approaches in rescues or landings in confined spaces or if
twich as fast as a Helicopter better survivability in battle.

Two vehicles using ducted fans are being built now in the USA and
Israel.

http://www.moller.com/
http://www.urbanaero.com/Urban_Main.htm

They both have a plausible market. (The Israeli one seems the better
to me)


If equiped with an appropriate control system of gyroscopes,
accelerometers and perhaps radar/lasers such a vehicle might be made
to hold station centimeters from a building to rescue people or to
land on someting as small as a tennis court.

The old FW-VTOL concept seems as good as the above two.




Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

One "VTOL" suacer that got to the preliminary designe stage was this
Focke Wulf "VTOL"
http://www.luft46.com/fw/fwvtol.html

I have no doubt that the device would work and is superior to the tilt
rotor concept and its troublesome gear boxes. It seems to have ducted
a gas turbines' exhaust to power a large contra rotating ducted
propellor in the center of the "saucer" with the tubine then being
deflected to provide forward propulsion.

Indeed if built today it would be excedingly usefull as unlike a
helicopter or tilt rotor it could manouever along side a skysraper or
land in tight spots free of the dangers of rotor impact.

Here's more information on the Fw VTOL:


http://www.germanvtol.com/fwvtolfolder/fockewulf.html

Rob