Vril 7 at Arado Brandedburg '44/'45

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