"Haunebu" & "Vril" flying saucers

[HenryS]

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

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...

OK, you now have one Epp photograph. And, OK, now you can go ahead and debunk it. And since you are at it, reproduce the pictures of the saucer on the tarmac and you can debunk them too. Oh yes, and Otto Lange's letter mentioning the series of prototypes and engines, etc. Also, debunk the Miethe photograph. And the "Noch am Leben" letter. Debunk the foo fighter photographs. Debunk the foo fighter documents from the US government and the USAF Combined Evaluation of German Capabilities in 1945, specifically their evaluation of foo fighters and atomic weapons tests. Oh yes, debunk the FBI report concerning the field propulsion saucer. Debunk the Schauberger models and witnesses. Debunk the FBI report of the chemical saucer in Austria and its picture. Debunk the Epp blueprint of the saucer he was building for the Soviets and tell us why the FBI would be interested if they determined it to be a hoax.

[Ironmachine]

No, I don't have to. You are the one saying that there were German flying saucers, so you are the one who have to show valid proofs of that. You haven't.
You were the one who said that

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.

But still you didn't want to show us the pictures. That's a rational attitude, certainly. Now, we all here have one of those pictures. Yes, it is the ultimate proof of the existence of German flying saucers during World War II... just because you say it; nobody with a sane mind can say there is a German flying saucer in the picture, and only Epp's words support the idea that this is an original photo taken in 1944. Yep, I'm now a believer, too... (I'm just being ironic, just in case you can't get it).

And you still have to ask

And tell me why you find the pictures J. Andreas Epp took of the Habermohl disc in the air over Prague airport objectionable.

? :roll:

[Ironmachine]

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.

Remember the Cottingley Fairies hoax?
Pictures taken by two young girls with a simple camera; negatives were available, they gave the time and place of the pictures, and they were young girls lacking knowledge of photography or photographic trickery...

Photographic experts who were consulted declared that none of the negatives had been tampered with, there was no evidence of double exposures, and that a slight blurring of one of the fairies in photo number one indicated that the fairy was moving during the exposure of 1/50 or 1/100 second. They seemed not to even entertain the simpler explanation that the fairies were simple paper cut-outs fastened on the bush, jiggling slightly in the breeze. Doyle and other believers were also not troubled by the fact that the fairy's wings never showed blurred movement, even in the picture of the fairy calmly posed suspended in mid-air. Apparently fairy wings don't work like hummingbird's wings.
Hardly anyone can look at these photos today and accept them as anything but fakes. The lighting on the fairies does not match that of the girls. The fairy figures have a flat, cut-out appearance. But spiritualists, and others who prefer a world of magic and fantasy accepted the photos as genuine evidence for fairies.

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/doyle.htm

And no, I'm not saying that Epp used the same technique for his pictures... only that your arguments for defending their validity have no value.

As a matter of fact, there is no need to show that Epp's pictures are faked to invalidate them as proof, because they actually show nothing that can be remotely identified as a German flying saucer. Only Epp's statement about them being pictures of a German flying saucers made them useful as "proof" of a German flying saucer's existence... but anyone seeing the pictures without knowing Epp's explanations could not identify a German flying saucer in them. There is only an undefined spot... that could be almost anything. Remember the famous "face on mars" picture that was used as "proof" of the existence of a civilization in Mars and lead to many conspiracy theories? The picture was not faked... but of course there was no "face" on Mars.

[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.

Remember the Cottingley Fairies hoax?
Pictures taken by two young girls with a simple camera; negatives were available, they gave the time and place of the pictures, and they were young girls lacking knowledge of photography or photographic trickery...

Photographic experts who were consulted declared that none of the negatives had been tampered with, there was no evidence of double exposures, and that a slight blurring of one of the fairies in photo number one indicated that the fairy was moving during the exposure of 1/50 or 1/100 second. They seemed not to even entertain the simpler explanation that the fairies were simple paper cut-outs fastened on the bush, jiggling slightly in the breeze. Doyle and other believers were also not troubled by the fact that the fairy's wings never showed blurred movement, even in the picture of the fairy calmly posed suspended in mid-air. Apparently fairy wings don't work like hummingbird's wings.
Hardly anyone can look at these photos today and accept them as anything but fakes. The lighting on the fairies does not match that of the girls. The fairy figures have a flat, cut-out appearance. But spiritualists, and others who prefer a world of magic and fantasy accepted the photos as genuine evidence for fairies.

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/doyle.htm

And no, I'm not saying that Epp used the same technique for his pictures... only that your arguments for defending their validity have no value.

As a matter of fact, there is no need to show that Epp's pictures are faked to invalidate them as proof, because they actually show nothing that can be remotely identified as a German flying saucer. Only Epp's statement about them being pictures of a German flying saucers made them useful as "proof" of a German flying saucer's existence... but anyone seeing the pictures without knowing Epp's explanations could not identify a German flying saucer in them. There is only an undefined spot... that could be almost anything. Remember the famous "face on mars" picture that was used as "proof" of the existence of a civilization in Mars and lead to many conspiracy theories? The picture was not faked... but of course there was no "face" on Mars.

Ironmachine,


You and the other Flugscheiben Deniers have been on a rant since this thread started. None of you have offered any concrete examples for discussion, yet you rant on. I offered Epp's pictures among other things at the implied suggestion of Phylo. After days of pressure, me pressuring you, you and the others finally admitted you had no access to the material you were putting down (what a surprise).

But now things have changed. You have entered into the record a book and material for discussion. Do you think I am going to let you go? If this were a court, you have entered into the record, as I say. Now, that record is entered as fact. Those pictures are fact, those FBI reports are fact. The testimony of the German in "Noch am leben" (Still Alive!) is entered as fact. The design by Epp for the Soviets is entered as fact. Otto Lange's signed statement to Epp is entered as fact.

It is not up to me to prove the validity of those things entered as evidence. If you want to disprove any of those you will have to take an active role, rather than sitting on your backside and whining, as you have done, and dislodge the validity of those items.

For instance, you must bring some sort of photo analysis or a report of such or your own photo expert to dislodge Epp's pictures as fraud. You must impeach the FBI report, somehow. You must challenge Lange's signature or otherwise discredit the document. You must somehow establish the lack of truth of the FBI report containing the Epp drawing for the Soviets. AND TALK WON'T DO IT.

If talk would have done it the abduction UFO folks would have done it fifteen years ago. They tried and totally failed. In the end we had hundreds of times more proof than anything they had. But you can avail yourself of their resources if you care to do and make another try.

You picked the book to use as an issue. Now back up your words. I am waiting. BRING IT ON !

I want to be fair. You can have a couple days, say until Tuesday, March 9, 2010. But if you need more time, let me know.

[Ironmachine]

HenryS,

You and the other Flugscheiben Deniers have been on a rant since this thread started. None of you have offered any concrete examples for discussion, yet you rant on. I offered Epp's pictures among other things at the implied suggestion of Phylo. After days of pressure, me pressuring you, you and the others finally admitted you had no access to the material you were putting down (what a surprise).

If there has been someone on a rant here, it is you. You have offered just words for discussions, nothing more... nothing of any value. You did not offered Epp's pictures, you simply talked about them and, when asked to show them, you refused. I have shown one of Epp's pictures... not you.

But now things have changed. You have entered into the record a book and material for discussion. Do you think I am going to let you go?

You would not want to know what I think, that's for sure.

If this were a court, you have entered into the record, as I say. Now, that record is entered as fact. Those pictures are fact, those FBI reports are fact. The testimony of the German in "Noch am leben" (Still Alive!) is entered as fact. The design by Epp for the Soviets is entered as fact. Otto Lange's signed statement to Epp is entered as fact.

Those pictures may be a fact; that they do show anything that can be identified as a World War II German flying saucer is not. The FBI reports may be a fact, their accuracy may be not; in any case, you should show the reports if you want to use them as proof, and you have not. That testimonies were made may be a fact; that they tell the truth is not a fact. Whether Epp actually made (or not) a saucer for the Soviets is not a proof that he made the same during World War II. Otto Lange's signed statement to Epp may be a fact; that the statement is the truth is not a fact.
Can you see the difference? :roll:
To put an example that even you could understand, the Cottingley Fairies pictures are a fact; the negatives were not faked; the girls' testimonies were a fact... but, as much as this may surprise you, there were no real fairies involved.

It is not up to me to prove the validity of those things entered as evidence. If you want to disprove any of those you will have to take an active role, rather than sitting on your backside and whining, as you have done, and dislodge the validity of those items.

If you really think that, then you are in the wrong forum. He who makes an statement is the one who has to prove it. On the other hand, given your ideas about what a proof is, perhaps if I tell you that someone (No,no. I am not citing his name and could never do so Sounds familiar to you?) showed me a signed statement from Epp in which he reveals that his pictures were faked (and no, I'm not going to show you the document, but I believe it to be real simply because I believe the history; the guy who showed it to me claimed to have received it from Epp, gave the time and place of the meeting, and was clearly incapable of doing a great deal of faking... again, familiar, isn't it?) then you are going to believe me and began to think that Epp was a fraud....

[quote="Henry""]For instance, you must bring some sort of photo analysis or a report of such or your own photo expert to dislodge Epp's pictures as fraud. You must impeach the FBI report, somehow. You must challenge Lange's signature or otherwise discredit the document. You must somehow establish the lack of truth of the FBI report containing the Epp drawing for the Soviets. AND TALK WON'T DO IT.[/quote]
But talking is all that you have done till now. Don't tell me that it won't do. Ohh, you have broken my heart.

If talk would have done it the abduction UFO folks would have done it fifteen years ago. They tried and totally failed. In the end we had hundreds of times more proof than anything they had. But you can avail yourself of their resources if you care to do and make another try.

Perhaps you should take a look at your attempt: you have also tried and you have also totally failed. I'm not even saying that there were not German flying saucers in World War II... I'm just saying that you have no proof of their existence.

You picked the book to use as an issue. Now back up your words. I am waiting. BRING IT ON !

I do not know what you mean when you say that I picked up the book to use as an issue. If you are talking about my question of whether you were the Henry Stevens that wrote Hitler's Flying Saucers - A Guide to German Flying Discs of the Second World War, my only intention was that other posters could take a look at it (it is available on Internet) and see the arguments and proofs that you could have (if you are that Henry Stevens) much more easily than through successive posts. Given that, I do not know what words I have to back up. You will have a long wait, I'm afraid.

I want to be fair. You can have a couple days, say until Tuesday, March 9, 2010. But if you need more time, let me know.

It would help if you can tell me exactly what do you want, because I'm at a loss regarding what you expect from me.
Regards.

[Grünherz]

Again, I bring up the question of "where are they now"? What happened to that technology and why isn't it being used today if it was so superior then?
Tom

("Operation Paperclip"?)

[HenryS]

Again, I bring up the question of "where are they now"? What happened to that technology and why isn't it being used today if it was so superior then?
Tom

Gruenherz,

This is a topic with a long history. I cannot tell in what level of answer you are concerning yourself. Are you interested in the Canadian aquisition of some of this technology? If so, you might see the discussion between Stellung and myself on Dr. Miethe, Palmiro Campagna, and Rudolf Meerschidt von Hullessum in the other thread on this subject.

[Grünherz]

Again, I bring up the question of "where are they now"? What happened to that technology and why isn't it being used today if it was so superior then?
Tom

Gruenherz,

This is a topic with a long history. I cannot tell in what level of answer you are concerning yourself. Are you interested in the Canadian aquisition of some of this technology? If so, you might see the discussion between Stellung and myself on Dr. Miethe, Palmiro Campagna, and Rudolf Meerschidt von Hullessum in the other thread on this subject.

Level? Well, the mere existance of the technology nowadays would be one. And I don't mean those funny attempts at post-war "flying saucer" prototypes. No, real proof of one of those "saucers" that could travel at a 1,000-plus mph and reach an altitude of 30,000-plus feet would be kinda neat.
Tom

[HenryS]

Again, I bring up the question of "where are they now"? What happened to that technology and why isn't it being used today if it was so superior then?
Tom

Gruenherz,

This is a topic with a long history. I cannot tell in what level of answer you are concerning yourself. Are you interested in the Canadian aquisition of some of this technology? If so, you might see the discussion between Stellung and myself on Dr. Miethe, Palmiro Campagna, and Rudolf Meerschidt von Hullessum in the other thread on this subject.

Level? Well, the mere existance of the technology nowadays would be one. And I don't mean those funny attempts at post-war "flying saucer" prototypes. No, one of those "saucers" that could travel at a 1,000-plus mph and reach an altitude of 30,000-plus feet.
Tom

So you want GERMAN sauces which have survived until now?

[Grünherz]

Yes. Authentic and verifiable ones. Not just word of mouth or "unprovable" pictures.
Tom

[HenryS]

Yes. Authentic and verifiable ones. Not just word of mouth or "unprovable" pictures.
Tom

I can give you a reference. But you will have to do the traveling and the verification and authenticate it for yourself. Do you want it under these conditions?

[Grünherz]

Because I am not financially or work-wise able to travel at any time, I suggest that you do the traveling and provide the evidence that these things existed. You proposed that they existed thus, I believe, it's in your corner.
Tom

[Ironmachine]

No, you have to debunk the evidence on the table, evidence YOU put on the table by your own admission. Thank you for your admissions that they are all fact. It is your problem to prove they are all facts but not facts relating to the discussion at hand, if you can. But you can't. You and the others all fall wayyyyyyyyyyy short when it comes to this.

Oh, man, the only thing I have admitted is that there is a picture in Henry Stevens' Hitler's Flying Saucers - A Guide to German Flying Discs of the Second World War that is quoted as "...taken by Joseph Andreas Epp as he drove to the Prag airport in 1944", but there is no proof at all that this was really the case. And there is nothing in that picture that can be identified as a German flying saucer.
But, much more important, as phylo has told you:

No. Here on AHF YOU have to prove they exist...we don't have to prove their NON-existence.
Believing they exist, without proof, is not the default here. You have to PROVE they exist.

Now Ironmachine admits having that material in his hand. He entered some of that material into discussion WITHOUT DISPROVING its basis in fact. Yet, he admits to the material's fact. NOW, Phylo, Ironmachine, LDW, and ANY others, that material IS IN EVIDENCE. I am not letting go of your "tails" (so to speak - not that you have tails) on this one. If you are going to deny the evidence entered as fact, you have to actually do so.

I have no idea of what material I supposedly have. If you mean the picture I posted, well, if that makes you happy I will admit its existence as a fact. But there is no evidence that it was taken in 1944, that it is not faked, or that there is a German flying saucers shown in it.

[HenryS]

No, you have to debunk the evidence on the table, evidence YOU put on the table by your own admission. Thank you for your admissions that they are all fact. It is your problem to prove they are all facts but not facts relating to the discussion at hand, if you can. But you can't. You and the others all fall wayyyyyyyyyyy short when it comes to this.

Oh, man, the only thing I have admitted is that there is a picture in Henry Stevens' Hitler's Flying Saucers - A Guide to German Flying Discs of the Second World War that is quoted as "...taken by Joseph Andreas Epp as he drove to the Prag airport in 1944", but there is no proof at all that this was really the case. And there is nothing in that picture that can be identified as a German flying saucer.
But, much more important, as phylo has told you:

No. Here on AHF YOU have to prove they exist...we don't have to prove their NON-existence.
Believing they exist, without proof, is not the default here. You have to PROVE they exist.

Now Ironmachine admits having that material in his hand. He entered some of that material into discussion WITHOUT DISPROVING its basis in fact. Yet, he admits to the material's fact. NOW, Phylo, Ironmachine, LDW, and ANY others, that material IS IN EVIDENCE. I am not letting go of your "tails" (so to speak - not that you have tails) on this one. If you are going to deny the evidence entered as fact, you have to actually do so.

I have no idea of what material I supposedly have. If you mean the picture I posted, well, if that makes you happy I will admit its existence as a fact. But there is no evidence that it was taken in 1944, that it is not faked, or that there is a German flying saucers shown in it.

Yeah, well Epp says it was. He was an engineer and a consultant for all three conventional projects at Prague. Who are you?

[Ironmachine]

Yeah, well Epp says it was. He was an engineer and a consultant for all three conventional projects at Prague. Who are you?

Funny question, as you do not want to clarify if you are the Henry Stevens that wrote Hitler's Flying Saucers - A Guide to German Flying Discs of the Second World War.
And yes, as Epp was an engineer and supposedly he was a consultant for those projects, he is utterly unable to lie. That's for sure.
As a matter of fact, you yourself have told us that you don't have any way to corroborate Epp's statements:

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.

Yes, this a sound argument.
And of course, nothing of all this negates the fact that there is nothing in Epp's picture that can be identified as a German flying saucer.

Now before I question each person who has denied Flugscheiben, by name, on this thread, I would like to see these rules Ironmachine, LWD and Phylo are hiding behind. Let's see if they are telling the truth and the rules allow them to simply post without contributing anything.

You can have a look at the rules here:
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=53962
Or you can ask a moderator if you want.
Or you can actually contribute something before blaming others of contributing nothing.
And, by the way, I have not denied the possibility of the flying saucers... only that what you show as "proofs" of their existence has no value at all.