About German Mystery Objects

From: "tim gueguen"


"Stephen Harding" wrote in message
...
I'd just like to know how come we don't see anything derived from
these "crashed UFO's"? Keeping something secret and never actually
using it sort of defeats the purpose of having it.

A number of times I've clashed on Usenet with a fellow named Don Palermo.
He claims that UFOs are actually human designed craft and that the stories
of "Mr. ET" are simply to cover this up. Why don't we see open evidence of
such craft? According to Don "Its classified," as if merely uttering the
phrase explains everything. Apparentl,y the US has spent zillions of
dollars on "conventional" aircraft and so forth to hide the existence of
this technology, which is controlled by some ultrapowerful cabal, and which
apparently no one else has ever managed to stumble across

tim gueguen 101867


Has Palermo ever explained WHY this cabal would expend so much effort? It seems
to me to be counter productive.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

In article m,
"David E. Powell" wrote:

"Keith Willshaw" wrote in message
...

"robert arndt" wrote in message
om...

Had they managed to survive into 1945 without being Nuked
the Germans would have been facing large numbers
of M-26 and Centurion battle tanks which were
superior to anything they had and fleets of the new US and
British jet fighters. Germany was on the wrong side of the
arms production curve from 1942 onwards. There was no
other way to go than down.

True, and while Germany's leadership was considering Hitler Youth as pilots
for those jets, US and British pilots with experience equipped with Meteors
and P-80 Shooting Stars (Or Bell P-59s)

Not P-59s. By the time the P-80 flew, the P-59 was relegated to training.
It wasn't even competitive against late model prop fighters.

would have had the edge in
experience. There weren't a lot of guys like Adolf Galland left flying by
the end of the war. I seem to recall that the Luftwaffe never ran out of
planes. Pilots were another matter.

tim gueguen wrote:
"Stephen Harding" wrote in message
...

I'd just like to know how come we don't see anything derived from
these "crashed UFO's"? Keeping something secret and never actually
using it sort of defeats the purpose of having it.


A number of times I've clashed on Usenet with a fellow named Don Palermo.
He claims that UFOs are actually human designed craft and that the stories
of "Mr. ET" are simply to cover this up. Why don't we see open evidence of
such craft? According to Don "Its classified," as if merely uttering the
phrase explains everything. Apparentl,y the US has spent zillions of
dollars on "conventional" aircraft and so forth to hide the existence of
this technology, which is controlled by some ultrapowerful cabal, and which
apparently no one else has ever managed to stumble across

If we assume it is the military that is masking the existence
of super capable aircraft via "UFO's", will these aircraft
ever get put to uses beyond mere test flights?

Haven't come across stories from Kosovo or Iraq [yet] claiming
"a formation of UFO's" attacked some target.

Looks like the price of having super capable, advanced aircraft
representing a non-linear leap in technology, is to spend a lot
of money over a very long period of time, hiding their
existence, and never actually putting them to tactical or
strategic use!

Super high tech can be extremely limiting!


SMH

On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 22:27:09 +0000,
phil hunt wrote:
On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 09:55:58 -0600, t_mark wrote:

Point being, as a person of no particular faith living in the U.S. I see the
'religion' here for what it is, and it's a far, far sight from the beliefs
of many foreigners who hear that most Americans believe in some sort of god
and summarily decide there's some sort of theocracy over here.

While the USA clearly isn't a theocracy, religion is clearly
influential enough that states from time to time take evolution off
their school curricula.


yep, democrary can lead to the vox populi, oy vey moment.

"B2431" wrote in message
...
From: "tim gueguen"

A number of times I've clashed on Usenet with a fellow named Don Palermo.
He claims that UFOs are actually human designed craft and that the
stories
of "Mr. ET" are simply to cover this up. Why don't we see open evidence
of
such craft? According to Don "Its classified," as if merely uttering the
phrase explains everything. Apparentl,y the US has spent zillions of
dollars on "conventional" aircraft and so forth to hide the existence of
this technology, which is controlled by some ultrapowerful cabal, and
which
apparently no one else has ever managed to stumble across

tim gueguen 101867


Has Palermo ever explained WHY this cabal would expend so much effort? It
seems
to me to be counter productive.

He has a number of, to me, and others, less than convincing rationalisations
about how it would supposedly do economic harm to people displaced by the
new technologies and so forth. He also, like other conspiracy theorists,
has an amazing faith in the ability of security services or whoever to keep
control of the information involved. After all, you'd think someone would
have gotten their hands on this supertech thru espionage at some point and
used it in such a way that would be publically obvious.

tim gueguen 101867

"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
In message m, David
E. Powell writes
Very true - and the US Garand was a good gun.

Easy to knock it with hindsight as overpowered and with that niggle of
the eight-round clip feed, but it was a reliable, effective, durable
semi-automatic rifle that led the world at the time.

Yes. And the fact that the M-14/M-21, which the USMC is reissuing to
riflemen, had a lot of M-1 heritage says something, too. My dad used to talk
about the M-1 with affection, but said the only thing to watch for was
smacking one's thumb with the bolt while loading the thing.

The MP43/StGw44 was an excellent weapon, but not available in sufficient
quantity: most of the German troops were still using Kar98s.

Don't forget the BAR, which had some quibbles (fixed barrel,
under-mounted magazine) but was a robust attempt at a SAW chambered for
.30-06. The Bren was a better weapon, but the BAR was good.

How could you see with that magazine on top? ;+)

The British of course had
the Bren, Sten, and Enfield.

The Lee-Enfield was adequate (like the Kar98 and 1903 Springfield, it
was a solid reliable bolt-action, distinguished only by a larger
magazine); the Sten was primarily notable for by ease of production and
acceptable reliability: the star performer was the Bren, which was still
in service five decades later. We also had the PIAT, which for all its
eccentricities was able to kill most German tanks that could be enticed
into range.

No argument there, though whoever went after tanks with PIATs gets much
respect in my book.

Sadly, we concentrated on producing what we had and left the innovation
for peacetime: it's a nice thought to imagine EM2s arriving in service
in time for D-Day

Oh yes. Or L1A1s.

ISTR the Germans also had G43 rifles, in 7.92
Mauser,

Rather demanding weapons, mostly issued to snipers who could give them
the TLC required to keep them working. And German production was
definitely having quality problems by war's end: shortages of everything
was taking its toll, and all manner of kit was having corners cut to
speed manufacture. Not every weapon was happy to be short-circuited
thusly.

One thing disturbing to me about late production German weaponry coming on
the collectors' market now, especially Mauser rifles made in Yugolsavia, was
who they had making them. Not exactly something I'd like to think about in a
piece.

--
When you have to kill a man, it costs nothing to be polite.
W S Churchill

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

"Eunometic" wrote in message
om...
"David E. Powell" wrote in message
ws.com...
"Eunometic" wrote in message
om...
Bernardz wrote in message
news:MPG.1a9b8d33930402ad9898f6@news...
In article ,
says...
Some say the technology came from an alien UFO that crashed near
Freiberg in 1936 and was taken to Himmler's castle at Wewelsberg,
reverse engineered. Nevertheless, Thule and Vril continued
development
of these RFZ (RundFlugZeug) with models 1-6 up to 1939. By the
start
of the war Vril had their own designs of which the often-quoted
V-7 is
mentioned. This is a mislabel as it is not part of the

The designation V-1, V-2 etc was not used till late in the war.

The designation V was for "Versuchs" the German word for experimental.
Most german protduction aircraft had up to 30-100 V series aircraft

This is incorrect.

The above sentence is entirely correct. German prototypes always had
a "V" series designation. Any book on German aircraft always lists
this.

OK. I was confusing the use of the word in the areas of "psychological
warfare" vs. experimentalism.

V as it related to the V-1 buzz bomb and V-2 rocket was
for "Vergeileitung" (sp?) which translantes into "Vengeance." Meant to
retaliate for bombing raids on Hamburg, Berlin, etc.

The proper designation of the "Buzz Bomb" was Fiesler Fi 103 and that
of the "V2" was A4. Preceding the A4 was an A1,A2,A3.

Nod.

The term "Vergeileitung" translates more accurately as "Reprisal".

Thank you.

The terms were applied both for their abillity to deceive allied
intelligence (thus the V1 Fi103 could be made to appear as a prototype
Flakzielgaraete" or aerial targed drone and the propaganda value as a
'reprisal' for the saturation bombing of German cities.


The V-designation was applied to the V-1 cruise missile, the V-2 rocket,
and
the V-3 cannon project which was never completed. There were other
guided
missiles, bombs, etc. that were developed but they did not have
V-designations. (The missiles used to sink the Italian battleship Roma,
for
isntance, or the Wasserfall surface to air missile concept.) Before
recieving the "V-2" designation, Dr. Von Braun's rocket was known as the
A-4.

Quite right but as I pointed out the V designation had a duel purpose:
it allowed the Germans to misrepresent their weapons as part of a
series of prototypes in accordance with the Reich Luftfahrt
Ministeriums standards for deisgnation.

OK. Thanks for clearing this up.

Eg Ju 188 V2 meant a derivative of the Ju 88 and the second
experimental protoype (Versuchs 2) thereof. The first series in
production was usually an "A" series aircraft but not always if there
were high altitude pressurised versions or clipped wing versions for
instance.

OK

As for the UFO stuff, it is nonsense. The proponents invariably post
some
sort of cock and bull talem then ask people to prove it wrong. The onus
of
proof is on them, and they try to avoid that because they have none. I
mean,
if I were a German strategic type in 1945 and I had some super-craft,
I'd
darn sure want to use it. Maybe against, say, the Russians? I mean they
would have had a lot of motivation there.

The Philidelphia Experiment also existed as an allied equivalent.

From all the rumors/stuff I heave heard about it, they alleged that it
happened but failed badly. I can't vouch for those stories having credence.
But if they had tried it once, one thinks the tech would have been worked
with since. No real evidence that this is the case, though. The fact that
crew and records of the ship mentioned deny it up and down comes to mind
also. It seems another "urban legend." Though it was an OK movie.

There do appear to have been "foo fighters" or reports filed by allied
aircrew of them that might be traced.

These may have been atmopheric phenomena, they may have been some
unusual lifting body aircraft probably a prototype with some kind of
pulse/ramjet system with lots of external flame that was being used as
some type of contact aircraft.

Or some guy might have been pulling a lot of hours in complete darkness with
only cockpit panel lights, and a radar screen, and gotten a little crossed
on something. Or seen a shooting star or something. There are probably a
hundred logical possibilities, and in the absence of proof that there were
some wierd UFOs or Mach 1+ superfighters flying around in the mid 1940s,
they are the more likely explanations for this stuff.

An aircraft with a speed of 600mph would have looked miraculouse at
the time. I don't discount that possiblity.

Yeah, but if there was one, you think some pilot would have been jumping up
and down after all the fame Chuck Yeager got years later. Or the Astronauts
for that matter. Plus if the US captured a bunch, wouldn't they have sent
some to Korea or something in the 50s? Just some questions....

Not to mention that if the Germans had any plane they could get flying, they
sent it up in 1944/45. The Heinkel Salamander comes to mind, so does the
Messerschmitt Komet.

I do discount the ideas
of exotic energies and propulsions systems based on Vril or some such
nonsense.

I think we can safely agree there!

DEP

"David E. Powell" wrote in message
s.com...
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
In message m, David
E. Powell writes
Very true - and the US Garand was a good gun.

Easy to knock it with hindsight as overpowered and with that niggle of
the eight-round clip feed, but it was a reliable, effective, durable
semi-automatic rifle that led the world at the time.

Yes. And the fact that the M-14/M-21, which the USMC is reissuing to
riflemen, had a lot of M-1 heritage says something, too.

They are? Why? The USMC (and the Army) snipers have moved beyond the M-21;
as to riflemen, can't see where the M16A2 is not sufficient (and if you want
to make it more effective in that 300 meter category, field an telescopic
sight for it). I can't see where the M-21 offers much to the rifleman in a
squad that the M16A2 can't deliver (past claims of the 5.56mm not packing
enough wallop being discounted as less than entirely credible).

Brooks

snip

In article m,
David E. Powell wrote:

These may have been atmopheric phenomena, they may have been some
unusual lifting body aircraft probably a prototype with some kind of
pulse/ramjet system with lots of external flame that was being used as
some type of contact aircraft.

Or some guy might have been pulling a lot of hours in complete darkness with
only cockpit panel lights, and a radar screen, and gotten a little crossed
on something. Or seen a shooting star or something. There are probably a
hundred logical possibilities, and in the absence of proof that there were
some wierd UFOs or Mach 1+ superfighters flying around in the mid 1940s,
they are the more likely explanations for this stuff.

There is a well-documented case of a pilot flying from Malta in (IIRC)
1942 who reported encountering a very agile, high-performance aeroplane
of a type he did not recognise. Or that's what he thought it
was. Eventually it dawned on him that it was a fly on the inside of the
cockpit. This may have happened more than once, and not every pilot
may have realised that it was but a fly.

--
Andy Breen ~ Interplanetary Scintillation Research Group
http://users.aber.ac.uk/azb/
"Time has stopped, says the Black Lion clock
and eternity has begun" (Dylan Thomas)

"David E. Powell" wrote in message
s.com...


The Bren was a better weapon


How could you see with that magazine on top? ;+)

Take it off and balance it on the offset sights.

GRIN