Umm…wasn’t this already covered by Joseph P. Farrell…SS Brotherhood of the Bell? I even think Greg Bishop did a whole hour on this topic with Mr. Farrell on his killradio show.
No, Red Pill, all of those are indeed
actual WW II German concepts. Strong
emphasis on the word ‘concept’. Whats
often overlooked in the rush to promote
the ‘Wonder Weapons’ is while the German were far ahead in some areas, in others they were almost painfully far behind. For example, though a number of the designs described at ‘Luft ‘46 ‘ are
supposed to have been supersonic ( had they been built ) none of them make use
of the principle of area rule ( which
I have read was known to the Germans,
apparently there is a 1943 Junkers patent, but I’ve seen no other documentation on it ). Another area
where the Germans lagged was electronics. The allies were quite a
bit ahead of the Germans in Radar and its applications-the proximity fuse
being the best example that springs to mind.
This Paradigm Probe blog entry is
interesting, ( I don’t remember hearing
of Gerlach before ) but I don’t put a
whole lot of stock in the notion that
we derived any great and still secret
benefit from the German scientists
brought over by Paperclip. For those
interested, there is a very good, very
lengthy article on the state of the NFSM
at…humph, well, there was a good article at Magonia, but its seems to
have gone south.
I don’t know. I remember that the jet engine was developed in paralell by both the germans and the british. The germans were ahead with their prototypes since Hans von Ohain had ample support by the S.S., but I remember reading that Hitler insisted that the jet engine effort be focused on the creation of a bomber to strike on London, so that single decission had a huge impact on the whole outcome of the war; if instead of bombers they would have focused on fighter planes, the allies would have had a much tougher time bombing the german military infrastructure, and that would have given the Reich more months to resist the ally offensive.
But in this Luft46 website there are planes with a lot of different concepts like the canard sustentation system for example, that was used by Burt Rutan for his different revolutionary planes, and earlier by SAAB. I’m sorry, but eventhough the topic fascinates me and i think there are a lot of things we haven’t been told about the german advances in weaponry and propulsion systems, I think we should be cautious in jumping into hasty conclusions.
I also would like to see movies of these things in the sky (the ones that passed the concept stage at least) instead of the usual renderings…
Looks like the 2nd part of the post is up. Glad to see he acknowledges Joseph P. Farrell… I knew immediately when I read the 1st post that I at least had tread these water before. Not sure if I learned anything new there.
Nov 28 2007 
November 28th, 2007 at 7:07 pm
Can’t wait for the 2nd part of this article. I admit that Nazi-related UFO legends is a topic that fascinates me.
November 29th, 2007 at 2:22 am
Umm…wasn’t this already covered by Joseph P. Farrell…SS Brotherhood of the Bell? I even think Greg Bishop did a whole hour on this topic with Mr. Farrell on his killradio show.
November 29th, 2007 at 8:21 am
To get a comprehensive look at what the Nazis had on the drawing boards in 1945, I highly recommend Luft46:
http://www.luft46.com/
I was amazed at the advanced designs to be found there (one that the Russians used as the blueprint for the vaunted MIG-15).
S
November 29th, 2007 at 12:15 pm
Thanks for link Skeptical, those drawings are beautiful.
Of course, I seriously doubt that many of those are actual WWII german concepts, but that’s the fun part of it, picking the wheat from the chaff
November 29th, 2007 at 1:43 pm
No, Red Pill, all of those are indeed
actual WW II German concepts. Strong
emphasis on the word ‘concept’. Whats
often overlooked in the rush to promote
the ‘Wonder Weapons’ is while the German were far ahead in some areas, in others they were almost painfully far behind. For example, though a number of the designs described at ‘Luft ‘46 ‘ are
supposed to have been supersonic ( had they been built ) none of them make use
of the principle of area rule ( which
I have read was known to the Germans,
apparently there is a 1943 Junkers patent, but I’ve seen no other documentation on it ). Another area
where the Germans lagged was electronics. The allies were quite a
bit ahead of the Germans in Radar and its applications-the proximity fuse
being the best example that springs to mind.
This Paradigm Probe blog entry is
interesting, ( I don’t remember hearing
of Gerlach before ) but I don’t put a
whole lot of stock in the notion that
we derived any great and still secret
benefit from the German scientists
brought over by Paperclip. For those
interested, there is a very good, very
lengthy article on the state of the NFSM
at…humph, well, there was a good article at Magonia, but its seems to
have gone south.
November 29th, 2007 at 3:30 pm
I don’t know. I remember that the jet engine was developed in paralell by both the germans and the british. The germans were ahead with their prototypes since Hans von Ohain had ample support by the S.S., but I remember reading that Hitler insisted that the jet engine effort be focused on the creation of a bomber to strike on London, so that single decission had a huge impact on the whole outcome of the war; if instead of bombers they would have focused on fighter planes, the allies would have had a much tougher time bombing the german military infrastructure, and that would have given the Reich more months to resist the ally offensive.
But in this Luft46 website there are planes with a lot of different concepts like the canard sustentation system for example, that was used by Burt Rutan for his different revolutionary planes, and earlier by SAAB. I’m sorry, but eventhough the topic fascinates me and i think there are a lot of things we haven’t been told about the german advances in weaponry and propulsion systems, I think we should be cautious in jumping into hasty conclusions.
I also would like to see movies of these things in the sky (the ones that passed the concept stage at least) instead of the usual renderings…
November 29th, 2007 at 11:33 pm
Looks like the 2nd part of the post is up. Glad to see he acknowledges Joseph P. Farrell… I knew immediately when I read the 1st post that I at least had tread these water before. Not sure if I learned anything new there.