Those (not so) backward Syrians--and their powerful friends

[Wicky]

Issac Asimov, Carl Sagan and Francis Crick* all were such small and narrow minded sheep

*CSICOP fellows

admittedly they ween't connected with the Committee for Surrealist Investigation of Claims of the Normal

[Peter Cairns]

John,

You could post ever single piece of "Evidence" you have, and just by scrapping the surface of mainstream academia on all the topics you talk about I could bury you under an ocean of well research, well documented, verifiable, peer reviewed data.

For you or any conspiracy theorist to claim that your body of evidence for UFO's, hyperweapons or anything else balances what is accepted by the world scientific community is just plain daft.

I gave up making an effort to read the kind of stuff you quote in my teens, actually during the period when I was doing my degree and really had to start doing my own reading and research.

What I quicky found was that there was a clear difference between the type of peer reviewed replicated research that is in academic journals, and the stuff in Newsagent magazines.

One of the easiest to spot, and it's pretty easy for anyone going over your posts to find, is the "Circle of evidence".

It sort of works like this,

You quote "A" as a source, and when we read it, he to back himself up quotes "B".

So you read "B" and find that his sources are "C" and, well "A".

As you have read "A" you go on to look at "C", and surprise, surprise, his source is, yes you guessed it "A".

So what on first inspection looks like an impressive collection of evidence, turns out to be no more than a house of cards, a few flimpsy pieces holding each other up to look far more than they actually are.

If my tone seems flippant, it's because it is, I take hampster racing more seriously than your posts, and I've never seen a hampster race.

Peter.

[Battlefront.com]

One of the easiest to spot, and it's pretty easy for anyone going over your posts to find, is the "Circle of evidence".

Like I discussed earlier about the Bermuda Triangle. Most of the "research", at one point, was nothing more than a regurgitation of a book called Limbo of the Lost. The worst thing about this "Circle of Evidence" is that as that it expands in size and scope. The circle grows wider the message gets more distorted as each new addition to the circle throws in their own bunch of hearsay, distorted fact, fiction, and whatever else does not qualify as properly documented information. This, of course, becomes part of the circle and its origins become more murkey. Like this:

Source A - An alien clunked John Smith on the head.

Source B - An alien clunked John Smith on the head. It was cloudy that night.

Source C - An alien clunked John Smith on the head. It was cloudy that night and there were strange lights.

etc. etc. This is very similar to an old kid's game called "Telephone Operator" (and other names) where one kid whispers something to one person, who whispers it to someone else, and so on. Then the person at the end says what the message was supposed to be and whadda know... very rarely resembles what it started out to be. And this is without anybody purposefully trying to distort the original message.

VP Dick Cheney used this same methodology prior to the start of the war in Iraq. His office "leaked" something to a newspaper which Cheney then cited on a morning talk show. The media then reported Cheney's position and the report. This was then tossed into the larger spin the Admin was putting on the war and it gained even more momentum. After it was proven that the info was a work of fiction, and people were now asking "how did we get duped", did the newspaper (NYT? I forget) came clean and listed Cheney's office as the source of the article. But by then the disinformation damage was done.

Steve

[John Kettler]

Peter Cairns,

Have you ever worked on classified programs and held a security clearance or clearances? I have, and they work on strict need to know and compartmentalization. On the National AeroSpace Plane (NASP) program, for example, you had to not only be specifically briefed into the program, but once in, there were four ascending security levels, each with its own separate briefing which had to be signed, each covering a particular area of technology or specific applications. It was okay at the unclassified level, for example, to indicate that the NASP or NASP Derived Vehicles (NDVs) could have military applications, but what those were was emphatically classified, Special Access territory.

You got only what you needed in order to execute your assigned duties and nothing more. Insiders report that the DOE Q (atomic weapon) clearance goes to thirty levels, with rumors of more beyond that. Area 51 access reportedly required direct presidential authorization, but the president himself lacked need to know, thus was forbidden access, with Bush Senior being a glaring exception. Similarly, in intel circles, you got normal clearances through Secret/NOFORN (no foreign nationals), then Special Access tickets like WNINTEL (warning, intel sources and methods involved) and CNWDI (critical nuclear weapon design information), then Top Secret (big background investigation requiring months) then Special Intelligence, which required an Extended Background Investigation (took about a year and went back to childhood neighbors,friends and acquaintances), then got briefed into specific compartments, such as Talent for overhead imagery using aircraft (U-2/SR-71) and Keyhole for satellite imagery (KH-9.11, 12 series recon sats, for example). Thus, someone cleared TS/SITK had Top Secret, Special Intelligence clearance with access to aerial and space based overhead imagery, but would not automatically be allowed access to National Security Agency controlled COMINT (commmunication intelligence), which was supersensitive and lived in its own compartments with names like UMBRA, TRINE, IVY BELLS, etc., being derived from things like tapping Soviet cables, intercepting high level radiophone traffic from Kremlin leaders, listening to misile test telemetry, etc., and that was separate from HUMINT (human intelligence) or the take from spies, if you will. The more you knew about the specifics of the source and/or the methods used to obtain the data, the higher the classification.

Back in the 1980s, the Sec Def tasked a highly cleared buddy to definitively sort out all the black programs, cleared him for all of them, and the man ultimately concluded that the chart he'd compiled was so incredibly sensitive and revealing that it was way beyond his own need to know.

The accounts of multiple black program insiders indicate that the clearances are astronomic, security all pervasive (reportedly including signing documents waiving Constitutional rights, mandatory strip searches, even scale controlled elevators running on biometrics), the cross flow of information minuscule, resulting in lots of wheel reinventing, and the guards intimidating to the point of creating bladder failure--unless you liked being jabbed in the chest repeatedly with loaded M-16s.

This, then, is the climate in which the most sensitive work goes on, and according to reports, what's taught in the universities is kept just short of what's really being done, and the gap can only be bridged by special briefings on the true state of scientific knowledge and the resulting real tech base. Even without such draconian security, though, it's quite easy to keep the lid on. I worked for over a year directly next door

at Rockwell to another classified work area, an area in which I knew some of our own Operational Analysis people worked from time to time, only to find out that an entire advanced aircraft was being designed there when necessity for my expertise on the project led to my being briefed for the program.

Bluntly put, just because the deepest secrets and the technical crown jewels aren't common knowledge or are pooh-poohed in the mainstreams, scientific and otherwise, in no way undoes or invalidates them. Such attitudes and kneejerk responses do, though, make the various black program security officers' lives easier.

Regards,

John Kettler

[aka_tom_w]

There is more here

with Pics on the B2 <a href="http://www.only1egg-productions.org/AltScience/Electrogravity/LifterPage.htm" target="_blank">web page,

another</a> web page with B2 model pics

Is this an anti gravity model of the B2?

These B-2B Spirit Lifters have since been safely tested with a maximum >5cm emitter wire gap, powered up to >26KVs @ 0.3ma, while exhibiting only infrequent, minimal arcing between wing and emitter wire in this configuration. Thus, after diligent fine tuning, have completed five measured speed run tests. Observing an average 37rpm, making a sustained velocity for these B-2B wings calculated to be 6.384mph. Although not exactly "earth escape velocity" please consider the following: The full size USAF B-2B Bomber has a 172 foot wingspan, which would equal 123.5 of my tiny Lifters. That would establish a scale speed of approximately 788mph for this humble pair of high voltage toys! Now we're talking some serious Electrogravitic progress being make... Onward to that next experiment!

What do you think?

-tom w

[Thomm]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

What do you think?

I remember laughing out loud when, after reading about the anti-grav devices on the B2 on the websites mentioned earlier, I read about the problems of aging and crack progression in their titanium structural components on Jane's Defence Weekly. Sounded *a lot* more down-to-earth than the antigrav stuff

Best regards,

Thomm

[John Kettler]

aka_tom_w,

That has to be one of the coolest web sites I've ever seen. Basically, what he's done is to successfully build and fly the original T. Townsend Brown patent antigravity demonstrator, but with the fascinating substitution of small B-2 type wingplan models (same basic approach as using the Have Blue "Hopeless Diamond" flight demonstrator to prove the technical concept of an all-faceted airframe prior to building the F-117) for the aluminum discs that Brown used as his flight vehicles. Judging from a fast scan of the page, he got them to work, too, thus establishing the technical proof of concept for using nondisc designs for antigravity flight. In turn, this casts the multiple reports of unusual B-2 capabilities in an entirely different light than that of mere reporting. What got Brown into instant classified status was when, using a much larger and more powerful version of the basic apparatus, he had 6' diameter discs flying on the end of his high tension power supply.

Thanks again!

Regards,

John Kettler

[ January 22, 2006, 03:21 AM: Message edited by: John Kettler ]

[flamingknives]

Anti-gravity? Where does it say that?

I skimmed the page and the patent and while the page makes unfounded reference to antigravity, the patent only talks about generating thrust.

The real questions in my mind are:

1) How does it scale? The author of the web-page assumes a linear relationship between size and speed, which is non-sensical in the extreme. For a start aerodynamic drag scales with the square of the speed.

2) Is it possible to put the necessary power source in a usable vehicle? Leaving aside magic and zero point energy sources?

3) Even if you can fit a sufficiently large power source into a vehicle, and it generates enough thrust to be useful, isn't it liable to show up like a christmas tree on any radar set? I would imagine that an electric field like that would chuck out a fair bit of RF energy. This might be a bit tricky for a Low Observable (LO) aircraft.

4) What's with the drinking straws on the nose and wing tips? Real B2s don't have them. AIUI they are to prevent sparks coming off the pointed bits, but that would surely be the case in a large vehicle.

[Peter Cairns]

Well John,

Yet another classic long post that said very little, to summaries

The security is so tight little gets out, thats why we know so little,

and

Just because we have no evidence doesn't mean it's not true.

And that ladies and gentlemen is a charter to say and believe anything you like.

It is also a route to a world where all views are seem as of equal merit regardless of the evidence or level of support.

In short " A Whacko's Paradise".

Peter.

[SSgt Viljuri]

This thread resembles a bit what Scientologists and other cults are doing...

Who wants to bite?

Converts! Unite! (don't forget to take your wallet with ya, buddy...)

[aka_tom_w]

that is sort of sad

I think we should leave Scientology completely out of this thread

Sure John and I have posted about some controversial issues and YES none of it is clearly within the realm of "proven science" but at no point did any one talk about paying money for "enlightment" or spiritual "wisdom" as in the (crooked) case of those theives from the Scientology cult.

(I better watch out now, I know that they are after me because on the internet you can't say anything bad or disrespectful about the "religion" of Scientology or they will come after you, its true look it up and do a search of Scientology and freedom of speech on the internet or Scientology and harassment. IF you are really interested I am sure there is a GREAT article somewhere on wired.com about their freedom of speach battle with the Scientology gag police!)

Right John?

-tom w

[John Kettler]

Wicky,

I'm familiar with the work of all three, especially Asimov, who BTW wrote a book, THE GODS THEMSELVES, which looked at what can happen when societies develop the tech base to harvest energy from other dimensions. I grew up watching Sagan on NOVA, also read BROCA'S BRAIN. As for F.H.C. Crick, I was studying his and Watson's discoveries for my own interests clear back in my pre junior high days. Had quite a passion for virology back then.

Not one of these people is/was stupid, but their organization is one built around what's called Rational Materialism, a world view clearly enshrined in the CSICOP Charter, and defended by its adherents with a ferocity that would make the

Crusaders proud. Under guise of "skepticism" (really pseudoskepticism, as I previously detailed), CSICOP has, time and again, used every pressure tactic imaginable in order to discredit competing ideas and harass and damage its foes.

Examples follow.

A French homeopathic researcher, who after rigorous experimental protocol vetting and peer review managed to get scientific evidence of homeopathic efficacy (repeatedly found altered molecular function at concentration levels deemed "impossible") published in a recognized scientific journal, was visited by James Randi, who loudly proclaimed he smelled a rat. This storm trooper for Rational Materialism a) did everything in his power to intimidate the staff, to include yelling at the staffers and trying to get them to recant, admit fraudulent practices, etc., and went around hurling down various lab apparatus, causing extensive damage to the facility, ultimately being ejected, this after arm twisting from CSICOP failed to stop publication of the results.

If you thought that one was good, I've got a better one. Uri Geller was going to be doing some psi demonstrations in his home, in a room known to James Randi. When every measure to prevent the to be broadcast demonstration from occurring had failed, James Randi literally abandoned his Rationalist Materialist "faith" and resorted to what any number of occultists would instantly recognize as being Black Magick. How? He E-mailed a long list of followers and asked them to concentrate "negative energy" on that particular part of Geller's house at the time the public psi demonstration was scheduled.

Several recipients of the E-mail didn't like this at all and informed Geller (passing on the E-mail, too), who canceled the event and rescheduled it for another day.

I've seen James Randi's message, and there's no way what he's doing there can even be remotely construed as a Rationalist Materialist act, for it is at once the same sort of focused intention used in a positive way in prayer and in a negative way to curse. Either way, it's way beyond third plane, five sense reality. His actions, though, are on par with real religious fanatics like the

high Catholic prelate who officially stated that it is okay to lie if the lie advances the interests of the Church.

There are many other examples of CSICOP dirty tricks which could be presented, but these really say it all.

flamingknives,

I called it antigravity for the sake of simplicity, but techically we're talking applied electrogravitics, albeit on a very small scale.

The technology we're discussing here doesn't work in quite the same way as standard aerodynamics.

For one, by charging the leading and trailing edges, both drag and turbulence are reduced, promptly throwing the usual equations into a cocked hat. Another neat trick is sucking away the boundary layer, something the Germans implemented on at least some of their craft during WW II, greatly reducing drag (see Vesco's INTERCEPT UFO--DON'T SHOOT and MANMADE UFOs 1945-1990). The value of leading edge charging and its contribution to stealth are briefly discussed in the AV WEEK (short form) articles mentioned, too. As to how it scales, I don't know, having built no working models thus far myself. I believe, though, it's fair to say that the guy who built the apparatus ran up against some fundamental minimums necessary to support the required electrical phenomena. Were his models, larger, then things wouldn't seem so disproportionate. Indeed, the real ones on the B-2, as described in the AV WEEK article, are only a few inches long but run across the entire leading edge.

The physics of UFO propulsion has been the subject of intense study by top minds including Hermann Oberth, one of the greats of American rocketry. In flight behavior and appearance of UFOs was detailed in the now declassified Air Technical Intelligence Center report, and there are even forensic descriptions and drawings available of the craft and components from the Roswell crash and related matters, the former by Bill MacDonald, who normally does forensic art for police departments.

UFO CRASH AT AZTEC by Wendelle Stevens, Lt. Col. USAF, ret., is another great resource for technical details, as are the writings and videos of Vladimir Terziski, if you can find them.

Moreover, whole books have written written on the topic, such as SPACE, GRAVITY, & THE FLYING SAUCER, by Leonard G. Cramp of the British Interplanetary Society and more recently, THE SECRETS OF FLYING SAUCER PROPULSION, by Noel Huntley (honors degree Special Physics, Leeds University; spent seven years working at the Atomic Research Establishment, Aldermaston, U.K.)

Some digging will produce footage shot by a independent Japanese crew of a craft from the Billy Meiers contactee case (camera was piggybacked on Meiers's), the Nippon TV footage from the special shot outside Area 51 (contact Norio Hayakawa), and I've previously given www.hourofthetime.com as a resource for the two Bill Cooper Project Redlight DVDs, so you can watch for yourself.

Once you've seen these things, and read the various reports, you should yourself be convinced that the answer to your power generation question is yes, especially since some of the German craft were flying under turbojet power (Vesco worked on some of the prokects during WW II). One of the more interesting postWar methods used nuclear power, but the craft was not very "clean" and heavily dosed three people in the notorious Cash-Landrum UFO case (triangular UFO escorted by a dozen Chinooks). That one may've been "alien surplus," but one seen by Dr. Paul Bennewitz and repeatedly reported to Senator Pete Domenici of New Mexico was not, for it had U.S. style bubble canopies and dead occupants in Air Force flight helmets.

Peter Cairns,

Your talent for both missing the message and obfuscating matters is truly impressive. What I was trying to show you is that a) the true states of both scientific knowledge and the resultant tech base are on exceedingly close hold; that it serves multiple agendas for the public to believe it knows when it knows not, and c) that secrets can and are kept, even unto death. One unit devoted to black program security has as

its motto Fidelis tamquam post mortem--Faithful even after death! That's how seriously these matters are taken, and I've shown that murder is very much a viable option in keeping the lid on when all else fails. BTW, murder to silence

military personnel who talk about UFOs/ETs is also in Bill Cooper's sworn statement, Operation Majority.

Cover your eyes and stopper your ears as you will,

but those actions by you in no way make unreal what's going on.

And we now have the once Top Secret files of an entire country, Spain, to draw from.

Spain is by no means the only country to treat UFOs as a subject of rational investigation, take Mexico, for example, where the national channels routinely air UFO footage which wouldn't even be allowed on the network affiliates here in the States, and France, where the government is working closely with several highly credentialed investigative groups. Japan was all set to put some of its own recovered UFO crash debris on display in a new UFO museum, but was bribed out of it by the U.S. at the last minute.

And if you think that everyone who testified (military, intel, air traffic control, pilots, ET program workers, etc., many of whom held nosebleed clearances, nuclear reliability certifications, etc., and some of whom brought contemporary documents with them as proof) in closed door briefings to parts of Congress, the media and the Pentagon about their direct experiences with UFOs and ETs are all crazy, then that's on you. It's been repeatedly observed by numerous astute people that the number and caliber of witnesses on UFO matters would be more than enough to convict for murder. The described briefings were done as part of the Disclosure Project www.disclosureproject.org That organization's briefing to the world, held at the National Press Club, had its webcast expertly and sophisticatedly jammed by someone who didn't want the word to get out--for hours!

You might also be interested to know that the Vatican is okay with life on other planets and ETs, the latter being considered ensouled beings.

Search under Corrado Balducci for details. He's a high Vatican official.

SSgt Viljuri,

I have in no way invoked or even hinted at Scientology here and would prefer not to have the waters further muddled by the addition of that to this already volatile mixture.

Regards,

John Kettler

[ January 22, 2006, 05:24 PM: Message edited by: John Kettler ]

[Peter Cairns]

John,

Iam not blind. but as I've said elsewhere, I always draw a distinction between, possibility and probability.

Many of the thigs you alude to art possibel, but very few if any are probable. As a rational person If I have too bodies of evidence, one extensive and well tested and another fragmentary and untested, I go with the tested one.

It's like Intelegent design v evolution. Is ID possible,... YES, Is it likely....NO.

The evidence for one theory is huge and growing, sure the theory has changed and evolved, and we've learned more, but with that it has been refined and grown in strength not weakened.

ID is based on a handful of bizarre organisism that don't fit in with the vast bulk of nature. Are we to abandon all of that because of a few oddities.

Oh and your comment about "throwing the usual equations" is rubbish, you can do a lot to reduce drag, and recent research on rolling leading edges etc, shows that, but the Laws still hold.

Better understanding of the laws at different scales allows us with new technology to refine and develope aircraft to create better performance, as seen in wing tip extentions on airliners, but this is an incremental process, not one bound and were all free to float.....

Peter.

[John Kettler]

Peter Cairns,

What I was saying is that if you blindly apply the standard drag calculations, without factoring high performance leverage things like suctioning off the boundary layer, electrostatic drag reduction and the like, you are never going to understand the true capabilities of the craft being studied, never mind that they also create their own internal gravitational reference system, allowing them to maneuver in ways which would squash even a combat pilot (all those reports of instant stops,

perpendicular course changes while clocking 3000 mph, going from ground level to 200,000 ft. in a couple of seconds, etc.) For the record, I'm talking about huge jumps in performance, not, say, ten percentage points in fuel economy from adding Whitcomb winglets, with which I am familiar. Even if you think in terms of the difference between a Sopwith Camel and an F-86, you're still missing not just the boat but the port of embarkation.

If you go back to the Allied technical assessments of the German aerospace projects right after the war, you'll find the conventional stuff, then the jet and rocket fighters, plus something so profoundly other and powerful that it was given the code phrase "revolutionary weapons for aerial warfare."

These weapons were the German saucers, whose scientists and engineers wound up in American, British and Soviet hands. The existence of a U.S. saucer program is confirmed by numerous witnesses,

and I invite you to look up a program called SILVER BUG which was declassified a few years ago.

Vesco, who retired in 1967 as Chief of Technology for the Italian Air Force, makes a very strong case that the British beat us to the punch in terms of fielding operational jet propelled saucer formations, masked under the failed Avro saucer, and there are reports and images from the former Soviet Union showing saucers in flight of unmistakably German design.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Peter Cairns]

No I am saying quite clearly that the laws of physics don't change just because you want them too.

There are a whole series of ways in which you can improve the performance of a wing, some of which you mention, but none of the will give sudden incredible performance enhancedments,

Things like manouverability and fuel economy improvements don't happen overnight because of some wonder discovery. All the hard evidence on the type of research the germans and others did shows that.

Like others at the time and since, they played about with electromagnets and saucers, but they never got anywhere.

The germans never got a saucer to do anything more than parlor tricks, and even then they were using enough power to light a small town, to get the performance of a hang glider.

As to film or pictures of them in Flight, hell if you believe photos produced in Nazi Germany you'll believe anything.

For me the classic is the threat from the Soviet nuclear aeroplane that couls "Fly Forever", a threat that some in the US took seriously (Oh given that you said you had assessed soviet capabilities for a decade, you wouldn't happen to be one of them would you).

Problem was to get a 50 ton plane with a 10 ton bomb load off the ground you needed a 150ton shielded reactor.

I find it sad that a seemingly educated person should cling to such flimpsy evidence when it's been abandoned by countless people with far better scientific qualifications and credentials.

Oh and as a practicing Catholic, I don't have a problem with life on other planets, it's just the idea of them travelling billions of miles in little discs to fondle hick americans that I think is nuts.

Peter.

[Thomm]

Originally posted by John Kettler:

... I invite you to look up a program called SILVER BUG which was declassified a few years ago.

Hey, that was pretty easy to find ( here)

Looks like a superbly inefficient design to me!!!

Entertaining, nevertheless! Keep 'em coming

Best regards,

Thomm

[Peter Cairns]

Yeah, but Rollstoy,

Don't you realise what John is saying, If you have "Electrowonder Drive", it doesn't mater how inefficent it looks, it will outfly anything.

Peter.

[John Kettler]

Peter Cairns and Rollstoy,

You don't need an Electrowonder Drive or even a nuclear reactor in order to have a working flying saucer. There's a picture in Bill Cooper's BEHOLD A PALE HORSE of one in flight over the U.S. in which, judging from the smoky exhaust trail it's leaving, the thing's burning hydrocarbon fuel and not very efficiently. Think much worse than a Phantom II!

I have a stack of photocopies from German newspapers in the early to mid 50s in which German saucer designs are shown which use Junkers Jumo 004 turbojets, V-1 pulsejets and even pure rockets for both rim rotation and forward thrust. The Silver Bug design is using a big version of an engine design the Germans flew in a ground controlled miniature saucer called Feuerball, if memory serves.

According to Vesco, this craft was fitted with powerful transmitters which disrupted onboard electronics and even engine ignition for planes it flew close to. ISTR also, that the Germans did some work on chemical sprays to disrupt engine functioning. Vesco cites not only all the enabling technologies for these nonnuclear/non zero point craft, but which German governmental entity or firm built the particular component. It's an in depth tour of German aeronautical research and application which I'm sure you'll find fascinating.

Another resource for UFO propulsion is a guy named William Lyne, who takes the position that the whole UFO/ET thing is a creation of the Pentagon and the CIA, as evidenced by his first book (can't recall the second) SPACE ALIENS FROM THE PENTAGON.

His fundamental argument is that the Germans built the saucers using Tesla's technology, and that we captured them, brought them back and flew them, shrouded in a thick cloak of secrecy and disinformation on a grand scale. He watched them fly near his home, carefully noted their behaviors, then set out to figure out how it was done. Interestingly, he bought what may well be part of one technically exploited German craft at a Los Alamos Lab surplus sale, in the form of an electrically shielded gyrocompass (mit swastika in center). The picture of it is in his book, together with some intriguing diagrams of how he believes the saucers actually work. You probably won't like the opening of the book, though, for he talks about being messed with by the government right off the bat.

Regards,

John Kettler

[akd]

Have y'all not figured out that you are actually having a theological discussion, not a scientific one?

[Peter Cairns]

AKD,

Pretty much figured a while back that Jiohms a believer and I am not.

As to not needing hypertechnology to make these things fly, Johns right, with them they are impossible because they don't work, and without them they are crap because ou can get far better performance from a plane, that's why there are no Triplane airliners.

The kind of spray or close magnetic stuff like maglevatation was tried and got no where, to hark back to stuff that was tested during WW2 and suggest it lead to secret supertechnology is just daft.

I think most people have seen the film of the British gaint rocket powered hampster wheel that was designed to clear mines. We tried it, it didn't work so we did other things, end of story.

Dozens of titanium stealth versions weren't secretly used to clear Iraqi minefields in GW1.

Peter.

[Thomm]

Originally posted by John Kettler:

I have a stack of photocopies from German newspapers in the early to mid 50s in which German saucer designs are shown which use Junkers Jumo 004 turbojets, V-1 pulsejets and even pure rockets for both rim rotation and forward thrust. The Silver Bug design is using a big version of an engine design the Germans flew in a ground controlled miniature saucer called Feuerball, if memory serves.

Well, that Silver Bug craft document looks genuine enough to me, so I think you are right when you state that some time in the past, somebody thought about how to build a flying saucer.

But at the same time I think that this particular design is so utterly useless, that this document is/was a waste of paper, and most likely of tax payers' money.

So, perhaps the Germans built crap like that also, but I think there are many, many good technical/physical/economical reasons as to why we do not see flying saucers in the sky.

So why bother with it?!

By the way, I read that article about the foo fighters on the website I linked and I have to ask myself: did anybody ever try to shoot the damn things down?!

Best regards,

Thomm

[Peter Cairns]

Saw a documentary on Foo fighters on the TV in the UK a few moths back.

The evidence was shakey at best, but what really struck me was how much the desciption of these so called fighters fitted with well know observstions of "ball Lightning", which has even been seen inside airliners in flight.

Again give the balance of probability I'd go for a natural electromagnetic effect or phenomena, like St Elmos fire, caused in part by the aircraft that saw it, long before I swallowed the line that in 1940 a few nazi scientists had built aircraft that we can't even come close too 60 years later.

Hell these people didn't even have computers for goods sake. It's like Leonardo helicopter design, he had the right basic idea, but it would never have flown.

I've from time to time told my kids to eat carrots because they are good for their eyes. I do it because I want to tell them to eat well, but I was told it by my parents when I was akid.

It actually dates back to WW2 when it was the government line, that RAF pilots were eating carrots so thay could see better at night. However that was just a cover to try to mask the fact that we were having success against night attacks because of radar.

There would be a huge incentive for the Nazi's to try to disguise what they were up to and to put us off the trail. In addition they were masters of decieving their own people in to thinking that they were invincible.

Add to that the fact that Hitlers inner circle would believe anything from the occult to well the occult, and they would probably fund almost any wierd project.

Peter.

[John Kettler]

Peter Cairns and Rollstoy,

No, I never subscribed to a Soviet "forever flyer," a concept which, even if it worked on the primary propulsion front, would be inherently limited by things like lube oil requirements, crew endurance (never mind notoriously bad reactor shielding!) and consumables.

I really do wish you'd take a look at the two Vesco books, for they contain a wealth of information on the true state of German aeronautical sciences, and that's without even hinting at atomics or zero point. Take Luftschwamm, for example, a high purity porous magnesium aerostructure. Rememember the discussion of boundary layer suctioning? Or how about something like seven different types of proximity fuzing, to include acoustic and IR? Nor do you have to take my word for it, either, because the cites are given to the relevant Combined Intelligence Objective Subcommittee (CIOS) and Basic Intelligence Objective Subcommittee (BIOS) reports, with the greater level of detail in the first Vesco book.

If you go back and compare the German P1101 swept wing jet fighter design with the F-86, you'll find we practically copied it directly. The same is true for one of the early Saab jet fighters as well, it being practically identical to a German design. The U.S. IR sniperscope M1 is practically a carbon copy of the German Vampir system, the U.S. M107 175mm SP sports the U.S. version of the super long range German 17 cm gun, and the M60 MG is our version of the devastating MG-42. If you compare German drawing board SP weapons with things like the M-109, you'll find a remarkable level of congruence. Bluntly put, we looted the German military-technical base, grafting it onto

our already huge separately developed resources and used the resultant fusion to fuel decades of

U.S. weapon developments. A few years ago, we dug into that same treasure trove and reexamined the German processes for converting coal to oil, so we're still drawing on that same base over 50 years later. If you aren't prepared to rationally examine where the Germans were at the end of the War, how can you ever hope to grok the true state of modern aerospace technology? Recall, too, what Vesco's last job was.

Regards,

John Kettler

[ January 24, 2006, 04:11 AM: Message edited by: John Kettler ]

[Peter Cairns]

Germany started WW2 as one of the most advanced nations on earth, and in some areas such as chemistry probably was the leader, but at best it was a ten year lead, with the west and US in particular overtaking it by the mid 50"s.

Certainly in electronics Britain was well ahead in computing, hell the Gloster meteor was based on Whittle designs that if we had backed them earlier would have seen the RAF fielding Jets by 1942.

But the fact that the germans had some mid 1950's technology by the mid forties, is a long way from suggesting that fifty years ago they had discovered things that science has failed to come up with since, or which has somehow been successfully supressed is nonsense.

As for using "likeness" as evidence. Well in terms of habit, diet behaviour, size and society, Pandas are a lot like Gorillas, but they aren't related.

I don't know who came up with the first Tank with a single gun in the turret, but the fact that everyone else copied it, hardly means the were all secretly sneaking in to his lab.

Peter.

[C'Rogers]

This thead was started off by John on the idea that Syria possessed some form of super weapon that could easily blow through tanks and that Syrians should subsequently be considered much more of a threat in the game.

Here is my question John, based off all your information (I am in the not believing you camp) shouldn't the USA and UN forces be significantly stronger? I mean sure the Syrians got that plasma firing anti-tank weapon, but the USA has anti-grav technology and flying saucers (and that is just to start)? Shouldn't this make the game easier for the American forces?