"Haunebu" & "Vril" flying saucers

[HenryS]

So, returning to those two books, one J. Andreas Epp's Die Realitaet der Flugscheiben and the other Klaus-Peter Rothkugel's Das Geheimnis der deutschen Flugscheiben---books that phylo-roadking made fun of me for my shock that people here had read such little known book--books that I am now to understand that everyone here has read and they are bread and butter bibles (no joke, fine books, both). But yet when the simplest of question is put to phylo-roadking, Ironmachine, LDW and Gruenherz, they have absolutely no answer and no idea what is going on. In fact, they have no response at all except ad hominem attacks.

But you can prove me wrong. Again the question: Just go ahead and tell me what is it you don't believe about the choice of the Habermohl machine by Dr. Hans Kammler in conversation with Georg Klein, who ran all three Prague projects before Kammler took over? And tell me why you find the pictures J. Andreas Epp took of the Habermohl disc in the air over Prague airport objectionable. I'll even give you another option. Make just one objection to either book--of any sort.

[Ironmachine]

Or even better... show me a working flying saucer! Come on, with so many experts, books, blueprints, diagrams of engines, ether physics books, etc, easily available, it should not be difficult to build one. I mean, one of those neat machines with "field" propulsion, anti-grav devices, and the like.

[LWD]

...books that I am now to understand that everyone here has read and they are bread and butter bibles (no joke, fine books, both).

Not sure how you came to that conclusion but it's rather obviously flawed.

But yet when the simplest of question is put to phylo-roadking, Ironmachine, LDW and Gruenherz, they have absolutely no answer and no idea what is going on. In fact, they have no response at all except ad hominem attacks.

Simple question? More like an irrlevant one. Indeed we do have a pretty good idea of what's going on. I don't need to have read ol of Velokowsky's works to know they are garbage or to be able to discuss one passage in the same to know they have no scientific value. Accusing others of "ad hominem attacks" when your arguments have failed indicates either you don't understand the term or are attempting to deflect the conversation.

But you can prove me wrong. Again the question: Just go ahead and tell me what is it you don't believe about the choice of the Habermohl machine by Dr. Hans Kammler in conversation with Georg Klein, who ran all three Prague projects before Kammler took over? And tell me why you find the pictures J. Andreas Epp took of the Habermohl disc in the air over Prague airport objectionable. I'll even give you another option. Make just one objection to either book--of any sort.

From your description they are sensationalist fiction. Can you prove for instance or even give us a reasonable argument that the picture you mention above is real?

[Michael Kenny]

Can any of the experts here show me a photo of one of these Nazi saucers that pre-dates George Adamski's book?

http://www.angels-light.org/english/boo ... aucers.htm

[HenryS]

Or even better... show me a working flying saucer! Come on, with so many experts, books, blueprints, diagrams of engines, ether physics books, etc, easily available, it should not be difficult to build one. I mean, one of those neat machines with "field" propulsion, anti-grav devices, and the like.

I jsut did, it is in Andreas Epp's book.

[HenryS]

...books that I am now to understand that everyone here has read and they are bread and butter bibles (no joke, fine books, both).

Not sure how you came to that conclusion but it's rather obviously flawed.

But yet when the simplest of question is put to phylo-roadking, Ironmachine, LDW and Gruenherz, they have absolutely no answer and no idea what is going on. In fact, they have no response at all except ad hominem attacks.

Simple question? More like an irrlevant one. Indeed we do have a pretty good idea of what's going on. I don't need to have read ol of Velokowsky's works to know they are garbage or to be able to discuss one passage in the same to know they have no scientific value. Accusing others of "ad hominem attacks" when your arguments have failed indicates either you don't understand the term or are attempting to deflect the conversation.

But you can prove me wrong. Again the question: Just go ahead and tell me what is it you don't believe about the choice of the Habermohl machine by Dr. Hans Kammler in conversation with Georg Klein, who ran all three Prague projects before Kammler took over? And tell me why you find the pictures J. Andreas Epp took of the Habermohl disc in the air over Prague airport objectionable. I'll even give you another option. Make just one objection to either book--of any sort.

From your description they are sensationalist fiction. Can you prove for instance or even give us a reasonable argument that the picture you mention above is real?

LWD, you are going to have to ask phylo_roadking why we are talking about Klaus-Peter Rothkugel and Andreas Epp. I made the statement, essentially saying I was surprised that here, at Axis History Form, anyone would have read those two books. Phylo made some comment asking me if I was being facetious or something like this. From his comment, I was evidently to assume everyone here had read those books.

As for me vouching for Epp's pictures, I believe them to be real simply because I believe Epp's total history. Epp claimed to have taken them himself with his own Leica camera, gave the time and place and was himself, clearly incapable of doing a great deal of faking. He was recovering from a self-inflicted gunshot to his belly and was just out of the hospital when this occurred. In fact, he was considered somewhat of a criminal for shooting himself and was under military court order at the time. The photographs has background trees and has never been debunked.

Someone else wanted to know about pre-Adamski pictures of German saucers. Yes, there are tons of them but most are from Norbert Juergen-Ratthofer/Ralf Ettl in the package they were given. I myself have seen one of these original and unpublished picture which came with a negative so they are not all photoshopped. There are others. Epp clipped three pictures to letters he sent out in the 1990s. These have been called the "Dutch photos" or the "Peenemuende Photos". They are of a saucer on the tarmac and one picture in the air. There are two pictures of the Miethe disc in the air. There are many pictures of foo fighters. There is an Air Force film of two attacking flying discs on a B-17 formation which I have not seen but which Bill Lyne has seen. A FOIA request was made for the film but it had fallen out of the hands of the US Army and into the hands of the US National Archives. The Nat. Archives simply would not release it but a German aircraft specialist with the US Army told me he personally knows and has seen the film. This was the attack allegedly by Heine Ditmar and Otto Lange.

Look guys, phylo_roadking's comments were ridiculous. Epp's book was published as a tiny production, without binding, with a publisher who worked, personally, out of his home. How many books do you think he published? They were never promoted outside Raum und Zeit magazine. Klaus-Peter Rothkugel's entire publication run was 400 copies. They were probably all sucked up by local bookstores and were certainly not promoted in the USA. I was given copies of both or I would not have them. I'll drop this now but please, I don't pretend to know details of U-boats or Messerschmitt BF 109 engines, and so on. Why would people pretend to downplay German flying discs when they know nothing about them? It seemed learned and cool to do this up until about 1987 but now it sounds like one has not kept up with developments.

If I am wrong and misjudging you, please come up with some substantive statements in rebuttal.

[LWD]

Or even better... show me a working flying saucer! Come on, with so many experts, books, blueprints, diagrams of engines, ether physics books, etc, easily available, it should not be difficult to build one. I mean, one of those neat machines with "field" propulsion, anti-grav devices, and the like.

I jsut did, it is in Andreas Epp's book.

That's funny I didn't see it. Oh you mean you refferenced it. How about putting a copy here for those of us who don't have the book.

[LWD]

...As for me vouching for Epp's pictures, I believe them to be real simply because I believe Epp's total history.

That's rather circular isn't it?

... The photographs has background trees and has never been debunked.

What do trees have to do with it and how can you be sure it was never debunked?

.... I myself have seen one of these original and unpublished picture which came with a negative so they are not all photoshopped.

There were ways of faking pictures well before photoshop and the UFO people were rather infamous for them. How can you be certain of the providence of the picture and negative?

.... A FOIA request was made for the film but it had fallen out of the hands of the US Army and into the hands of the US National Archives. The Nat. Archives simply would not release it but a German aircraft specialist with the US Army told me he personally knows and has seen the film.

This is problematic as well. The national archives are part of the US government and subject to fredome of information request as well. Perhaps they simply didn't have it (non existence being a not unreasonable assumption for them not having it).

... Why would people pretend to downplay German flying discs when they know nothing about them? ....

Because there is little or no evidence for there existence, most arguements for them rely on unverifiable or in many cases fallacious documents, and the scientific evidence argues against them.

[Ironmachine]

LWD, regardind Epp's pictures, the following one comes from Henry Stevens' Hitler's Flying Saucers - A Guide to German Flying Discs of the Second World War. (I obtained it from an on-line copy of the book). The picture is captioned as: "left is the closest shot of the two taken by Joseph Andreas Epp as he drove to the Prag airport in 1944. To the right is a blow up (400 times) of that same saucer".

32.JPG (86.69 KiB) Viewed 843 times

So, as you can see, this is an outstanding picture that proves... What is this exactly a proof of? Not of the existence of German flying discs, that's for sure; at best, it could prove the existence of people who want to believe in German flying discs... Unless HenryS can provide a much, much better copy of that picture, there is nothing more to say;
And yes, Epp did gave the time when this happened. In fact (from the same book)...

Joseph Andreas Epp reports in his book Die Realitaet der Flugscheiben (The Reality of the Flying Discs) that an official test flight occurred in February of 1945. Epp managed to take two still pictures of the saucer in flight which appear in his book and are reproduced here. There is some confusion about the date of these pictures. In the video film "UFOs Secrets of the3rd Reich", Epp states these pictures were taken in the Fall of 1944. In his book the date is given as the official date of February 14, 1945. In personal correspondence to me of December, 30, 1991, he indicated the date of the pictures as August, 1944. In that correspondence he further revealed that the official flight had been February 14, 1945 but an earlier lift-off had taken place in August of 1944.

...he gaves different dates, so you can chose the one that suits you best. Now, what credibility it gives to the picture that he said Prague and 1944 and not, for example, Vienna and 1945, I can't see.
Whether he was clearly incapable of doing a "great deal" of faking I don't know. But surely it takes little effort to fake a picture in which almost nothing can be clearly seen.
All this is just an example of what makes the matter entirely questionable. A conventionally-driven flying disc, like this one is supposed to be, is not entirely unbelievable, though I doubt that such an over-engineered machine could be made workable with the technology available at the time, and less so with the high performance that Epp mentions. But anyway, of course we will need more and better evidence as proof of its existence. Some blurry pictures, some "contemporary" blueprints and some questionable statements by supposed "witnesses" are not enough by any measure. There were supposedly fifteen prototypes built (Epp's words) and a number of flight tests were carried out, and still the graphic documentation is ridiculous, while there are far less extravagant aircraft projects of the Third Reich with lesser numbers of prototypes of which a good number of good pictures exists.
And that without even comenting about non-conventional flying saucers with secret propulsion means and anti-grav devices and the like...

[Michael Kenny]

As for me vouching for Epp's pictures, I believe them to be real simply because I believe Epp's total history. Epp claimed to have taken them himself with his own Leica camera, gave the time and place and was himself, clearly incapable of doing a great deal of faking..................................
Someone else wanted to know about pre-Adamski pictures of German saucers. Yes, there are tons of them but most are from Norbert Juergen-Ratthofer/Ralf Ettl in the package they were given. I myself have seen one of these original and unpublished picture which came with a negative so they are not all photoshopped

I am nowhere near a photography expert but many times I have rephotographed an existing photo to get a negative. It is childs play and thus the negative in no way authenticates it as 'original'.
Do you have a book example where we can see Adamski's Venusian Flying saucers that can be dated BEFORE Adamski faked them?
How could a saucer fabricated in the 1950's by George Adamski be a 1945 Nazi saucer?

[HenryS]

Or even better... show me a working flying saucer! Come on, with so many experts, books, blueprints, diagrams of engines, ether physics books, etc, easily available, it should not be difficult to build one. I mean, one of those neat machines with "field" propulsion, anti-grav devices, and the like.

I jsut did, it is in Andreas Epp's book.

That's funny I didn't see it. Oh you mean you refferenced it. How about putting a copy here for those of us who don't have the book.

Borrow a copy from phylo_roadking.

Look, I am not her to nursemaid you. I'll give you the references. For the record, I have corrected just some of the total inaccuracies of this thread. I am not going to get the reference for you and drive to your house and read it to you. Setting the record straight while it is in my presence is all I am going to do. If you then want to discuss the ISSUE one way or another, fine. But I am not a missionary or a crusader. I really don't care if you or the others here like you "believe" in deutsche Flugscheiben or not.

[HenryS]

As for me vouching for Epp's pictures, I believe them to be real simply because I believe Epp's total history. Epp claimed to have taken them himself with his own Leica camera, gave the time and place and was himself, clearly incapable of doing a great deal of faking..................................
Someone else wanted to know about pre-Adamski pictures of German saucers. Yes, there are tons of them but most are from Norbert Juergen-Ratthofer/Ralf Ettl in the package they were given. I myself have seen one of these original and unpublished picture which came with a negative so they are not all photoshopped

I am nowhere near a photography expert but many times I have rephotographed an existing photo to get a negative. It is childs play and thus the negative in no way authenticates it as 'original'.
Do you have a book example where we can see Adamski's Venusian Flying saucers that can be dated BEFORE Adamski faked them?
How could a saucer fabricated in the 1950's by George Adamski be a 1945 Nazi saucer?

Adamski is an issue all by himself. Norbert Juergen-Ratthofer says that all the Adamski craft are Haunebus. This means, in NJR's eyes, Adamski had nothing to do with them other than photograph them. I don't know if Adamski faked anything or not. I spoke with two or three of G. Adamski's relatives a few years ago and they stilll maintain the same position. Someone wanted me to explain the NJR position to them so I did so.

My own personal opinion about the matter is the Germans did not have operational Haunebu-type craft during the war, only experimental craft with problems. It was only after the war, in about 1952, when the SS survival groups developed the Haunebu. This would place both in exactly the same time frame so it is only a question of whom you believe.

[Michael Kenny]

You can not use Adamski and his photos as 'confirmation' because he clearly states he travelled in these saucers and that the occupants were Alien beings. Adamski tells a tale that is completely at odds with any wunder-waffen explaination.
Adamski was the first person to use this type of saucer (known to be faked using a lighshade and 3 ping-pong balls) and the true believers claimed it as their own.
Are there any photos/drawings of this type of saucer that can be conclusively dated as being published before Adamski wrote his book?
more here:
http://www.ufologie.net/htm/germansaucersts.htm

[LWD]

...That's funny I didn't see it. Oh you mean you refferenced it. How about putting a copy here for those of us who don't have the book.

Borrow a copy from phylo_roadking.

Look, I am not her to nursemaid you. I'll give you the references. ...

If you check the forum rules you will find I'm not asking for anything more than they call for. Especially if you say a source supports your postion you should give more than just a title. If it's a rare or dificult to obtain source then you should not only give a specific reference you should quote the material you feel supports your postion.

[HenryS]

You can not use Adamski and his photos as 'confirmation' because he clearly states he travelled in these saucers and that the occupants were Alien beings. Adamski tells a tale that is completely at odds with any wunder-waffen explaination.
Adamski was the first person to use this type of saucer (known to be faked using a lighshade and 3 ping-pong balls) and the true believers claimed it as their own.
Are there any photos/drawings of this type of saucer that can be conclusively dated as being published before Adamski wrote his book?
more here:
http://www.ufologie.net/htm/germansaucersts.htm

I think you are right. Using the Adamski pictures to prove anything is probably not a good idea. Also, since some of the material associated with the NJR/Ralf Ettl pictures is clearly not correct, perhaps they should be thrown out unless accompanied with a negative. All the Haunebu pictures SURFACED circa 1988, after computer technology became available. We are not really ever going to get an absolute date. Some of the pictures were allegedly taken during the war but there is no way I know to prove or disprove this. I had a German friend call the post-production company in Austria regarding the first video film in which they appeared. He would not talk to my friend. My friend called his wife, uncommon name so he found her listed, and she said the post-production guy never talked about it and they were in a divorce.