![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|