Foo-Fighters Were German: The Evidence

Discussions on all (non-biographical) aspects of the Luftwaffe air units and general discussions on the Luftwaffe.
Post Reply
roggenwolf
Member
Posts: 29
Joined: 10 Apr 2005, 01:56
Location: Australia
Contact:

#61

Post by roggenwolf » 27 Dec 2005, 20:52

I've read that comment about the jet exhausts, too. Couldn't say if it were true or not; but, then again, German jets tended to attack Allied aircraft, so we could probably rule them out, anyway.

Still, at least one foo-fighter sighting appears to have been of a Bachem Ba349 'Natter' ... The case in which in which pilot Lt. David L. McFalls and his radar-observer, Lt. Ned Baker, saw ‘[a] glowing red object shooting straight up, which suddenly changed to a view of an aircraft doing a wing-over, going into a dive and disappearing.’

I'm given to understand that, upon launch, the Natter would be guided, by ground-based radio-control, to a point above and in front of the target bombers. At this point the pilot would assume control of the aircraft and ‘push over’ for a gliding attack. Both in its appearance and its manoeuvres, this seems to agree with the foo-fighter reported by McFalls and Baker.

Construction of the Ba 349A production model commenced in October 1944, and fifteen were test-launched during the next few months. This corresponds nicely with the time period in which the 415th NFS was sighting foos, so we could very well be onto a winner, here.

btw, you don't actually need to be shot at, all the time, to be 'under combat conditions'. There was a war going on, and I'm reasonably certain that the night-fighters came under attack, both from the ground and from the air, at least some of the time. On those occassions when they didn't, the aircrews would have been expecting it ... We had a saying, in the army: 'Combat is 90 per cent waiting and 10 per cent action'. Sometimes anticipation can be much, much worse.

krztalizer
Member
Posts: 12
Joined: 25 Dec 2005, 09:01
Location: San Diego

#62

Post by krztalizer » 27 Dec 2005, 21:23

"-Gentlemen, I totally agree you on the subject that it's very easy to misidentify airborne objects during both day and night .. But as you pick up the subject of stress factors during combat conditions I must point out that most reported sightings of "Foo's" where not during combat conditions."

While I inserted combat stress as a multiplier for inaccurate reportings, I also must insist that airmen in general have a poor history of interpreting met phenomena. I used to lose hair trying to teach size recognition ("Are you overflying a Kirov, or a Krivak, 30,000' below?"), and I've personally witnessed mirage-type events that showed objects from far beyond the visual horizon. The well-known event of the postwar P-51 pilot that died while chasing Venus is another strong indicator that natural things can appear unnatural to a pilot, even in peacetime conditions.

I should add here that I am not trying to explain away every wartime Foo-fighter sighting as an exaggerated report of a natural event. I'm not psychic - I can't get into the airmen's heads but I can tell you that flying is not a natural environment for a human being. Of your six senses (must add that "seat of the pants" feeling), your vision gets distorted looking out of of a curved canopy, perhaps with armored glass, and the rest of your normal senses are simply robbed from you entirely. The human mind is left to make a whole lot of decisions based entirely on personal experience, and somewhat distorted visual cues. Factor in that we don't know everything there is to know about ball-lightning, St Elmo's Fire, and other met events, and I think you can adequately accept the majority of these sightings as natural, but unexplained, events. Plus, those pesky time travelers that show up, go "Peek a boo!" and then vanish - those guys just plain tick me off.

"Of course stress and loss of sleep makes a man pretty "twitchy" after just a couple of days but it must be hard to "misidentify" a German jetplane as a "glowing ball of fire" .."

Agreed. But like "rocket flak" and "Scarecrow" that the RAF reported turned out to be something far more gruesome and sad, sometimes the relative speeds and characteristics of those 'glowing balls of fire' aren't reported accurately. Again, that doesn't explain every event away, however, it does illustrate that these reports cannot be taken as hard-proven facts without the need to filter them. The RAF night reports of Me 163 attacks are good for showing that even the most skilled and motivated witnesses are sometimes simply wrong - no Me 163 made a night flight - period - let alone attacked anyone.

"Also, I've heard that the pilots who reported the "Foo" sightings said that it couldn't be jetplanes because the exhaust of the jet engine wasn't visible during the night .. Is this true ?"

Depends entirely on the jet - and I've never seen a Jumo run at night so I can't say. Some modern a/c can be seen from directly behind; off the top of my head, an S-3 Viking from dead astern shows two faint blue-ish rings. Still, I am not trying to offer definitive proof against "Foo fighters", just pointing out that sightings by airmen in general are not that accurate.

In 1986, CDR Ricciardi and I had a "close encounter" in a T-39 that could easily have been reported as a UFO, seen across 8 states. I'm writing this without referring to my notes, so its probable that I will be off a little, but here is the basic story:

Flying in pitch-black conditions trucking across New Mexico at 35,000', we were slowly bathed in light of ever-increasing intensity. Looking back down the tube (fuselage), it was clear that light was flooding in from every window. Ric and I frowned at each other and looked out on what can only be described as a false dawn - instead of inky darkness, we could start to see geographic details below us. Hair on arms standing up, I think we were both wondering WTF at the top of our mental lungs. Ric lifted one wing, we looked all around. Ric lifted the other wing, nothing. Light getting brighter...

At about the same time, we both craned our necks to look straight up. There was the culprit. A freaking gigantic tube of light overtaking us from behind, creeping by us at an unbelievable height. Try to imagine a locomotive-sized "thing", glowing white hot and pulling a trail of vapor as it crept over us. At the time, I thought it was the size of an aircraft carrier, and honestly, what I thought of at that moment was the old Star Trek episode where an F-104 pilot encountered the Enterprise as it stumbled through Earth's thick atmosphere. Ric and I watched with our mouths hanging open as it rumbled over.

I would guess it was going at thousands of miles per hour, but it was so high up that it took forever to pass by. As it went over, the radio came alive with heavy pilots all across the Southwest asking Albuquerque (sp?) Center just "What the hell are we looking at?!" One wizened old voice put it simply, "I've been flying for TWA for decades and I've never seen anything like that." Center just kept saying, "Wait one!" over and over, making frantic calls to try and figure out what we were all seeing. The object rumbled on through the night, gradually letting the darkness reclaim the disturbed night, but we could see the thing far out ahead of us as the object shed tiny flaming pieces off itself.

Ric, naturally, went back to what he was doing without a comment. He was the kind of yacht sailor that just said, "Hmmm." under conditions that would tie most of us in knots.

By the time we landed, NORAD came on the air and said, "Gentlemen, you've all just seen the re-entry of a Soviet rocket booster." Someone replied, "Riiiiiiiiiiight." and we all got a laugh. It was in all the papers - I have a copy of the newspaper report scanned on my other computer and can dig out the date if anyone is truly interested.

My point to all that is that hundreds of air observers and thousands of ground witnesses all saw that event, what was most likely a low-angle meteor (or the aforementioned Cosmos booster) plowing through the atmosphere. It happened in 1986, decades after the word UFO entered our vocabulary. I have no doubts whatever that if such an event happened in earlier times, it would have been called everything from a "foo fighter", to an angel, bathing the world in its redeeming light, or in Rob Arndt's world, an Antarctic-based Vril. I do know that thousands of UFO sightings were reported that night, including reports that the object maneuvered around (which it most certainly did not do).

To make a ridiculously long post a little shorter, Roggenwolf, I would be happy to answer any questions that I can on your subject. Email me at Krztalizer on AOL. Please send me a note and we can discuss your research project.

v/r Gordon


User avatar
PPoS
Member
Posts: 848
Joined: 22 Sep 2004, 13:35
Location: Sweden

#63

Post by PPoS » 28 Dec 2005, 19:29

Still, at least one foo-fighter sighting appears to have been of a Bachem Ba349 'Natter' ... The case in which in which pilot Lt. David L. McFalls and his radar-observer, Lt. Ned Baker, saw ‘[a] glowing red object shooting straight up, which suddenly changed to a view of an aircraft doing a wing-over, going into a dive and disappearing.’
I really don't think so, they were not flights made during nighttime with the Bachem Ba349 ''Natter''.

Agreed. But like "rocket flak" and "Scarecrow" that the RAF reported turned out to be something far more gruesome and sad, sometimes the relative speeds and characteristics of those 'glowing balls of fire' aren't reported accurately.
Could be a possibility, I've been through that subject too .. But still some pilots were sure of that the "balls of fire" where following their A/C and was under some kind of "intelligent" control.
The well-known event of the postwar P-51 pilot that died while chasing Venus is another strong indicator that natural things can appear unnatural to a pilot, even in peacetime conditions.
Yes I'm aware of the story. But eyewitnesses reported that the P-51 exploded in mid-air before it crashed. How does one explain something like that, when the pilot only was chasing Venus?

I'm not saying that a UFO has to be an alien craft from deep space, but I do believe more that most UFO:s that are reported are actually some technology coming from Earth itself.

roggenwolf
Member
Posts: 29
Joined: 10 Apr 2005, 01:56
Location: Australia
Contact:

#64

Post by roggenwolf » 29 Dec 2005, 00:54

PPoS wrote:
Still, at least one foo-fighter sighting appears to have been of a Bachem Ba349 'Natter' ... The case in which in which pilot Lt. David L. McFalls and his radar-observer, Lt. Ned Baker, saw ‘[a] glowing red object shooting straight up, which suddenly changed to a view of an aircraft doing a wing-over, going into a dive and disappearing.’
I really don't think so, they were not flights made during nighttime with the Bachem Ba349 ''Natter''.
Admitted, this identification is speculation, on my part. If you have a copy of the testing schedule for the Ba349, would you send me a transcript? I haven't been able to obtain one, yet.
PPoS wrote:
Agreed. But like "rocket flak" and "Scarecrow" that the RAF reported turned out to be something far more gruesome and sad, sometimes the relative speeds and characteristics of those 'glowing balls of fire' aren't reported accurately.
Could be a possibility, I've been through that subject too .. But still some pilots were sure of that the "balls of fire" where following their A/C and was under some kind of "intelligent" control.
It would be more accurate to say that later commentators have claimed that pilots were sure the foo-fighters were under some kind of intelligent control. The mission reports and war diaries typically report nothing but 'lights', while the earliest newspaper and magazine articles (1944 and 1945) say only that Allied aircraft were 'followed'.
PPoS wrote:
The well-known event of the postwar P-51 pilot that died while chasing Venus is another strong indicator that natural things can appear unnatural to a pilot, even in peacetime conditions.
Yes I'm aware of the story. But eyewitnesses reported that the P-51 exploded in mid-air before it crashed. How does one explain something like that, when the pilot only was chasing Venus?
Again, it would be more accurate to say that later commentators have claimed that eyewitnesses saw Mantell's P-51 explode before it crashed. The logs from Godman AFB say only that the tower lost sight of the UFO at 15:50 hours, and that Mantell crashed a few minutes later. The accident report on the crash states only that the P-51 had lost lost a wing due to excessive speed in a dive, after Mantell had 'blacked out' due to the lack of oxygen. Mantell's body had not burned, it had not disintegrated, and it was not full of holes, as some authors have claimed, since the 1970s. Neither was the wreckage radioactive, nor inexplicably magnetised.
PPoS wrote:I'm not saying that a UFO has to be an alien craft from deep space, but I do believe more that most UFO:s that are reported are actually some technology coming from Earth itself.
It seems fairly clear that at least some UFO sightings have been of aircraft that were manufactured on Earth. Still, this doesn't mean that they are necessarily disc-shaped or powered by drives that operate according to principles that contradict the known laws of physics.

I always find fascinating the fact that the USAF had logged 853 reports of unidentified disc-shaped 'flying saucers' within three weeks of Kenneth Arnold's sighting being reported in American newspapers and on American radio programmes. Presumably these witnesses believed that they were seeing the same kind of object that Arnold saw. Ironically, though, Arnold never described his objects as discs or saucers. Indeed, the diagrammes that he drew for the FBI look more like the Focke-Wulf 'Schnellflugzeug' and the Horten Ho 229 - terrestrial aircraft powered by conventional means.

The problem with the whole 'Nazi UFO' thing is that a handful of authors have arrogated to themselves the mantle of authority and published unsubtantiated allegations, which their audience has then accepted without question. The arguments that are then wielded in support of these authors contentions are actually magnificent examples of 'confirmation bias' and 'avoidance of cognitive dissonance', inasmuch as they typically rely less on verifiable evidence and reason than on simple contradiction, bluster and verbal abuse. To be frank, though, this is a potentially dangerous mindset.

As MAX_theHitMan remarked, none of us should believe everything that we read. And it is always a good idea to read at least some of the material produced by authors with opposing views, in order to make informed decisions.

User avatar
MAX_theHitMan
Member
Posts: 965
Joined: 19 Apr 2004, 01:28
Location: Planet*Portugal

#65

Post by MAX_theHitMan » 29 Dec 2005, 02:33

I quite agree with you Mister RoggenWolf on what you have just stated.

As for what I have mentioned, well...don´t take my words for it.
Investigate the cases one by one and with an open view(mind) and then assume your own conclusions. After numerous years of investigating into this unknown phenomenon and reading countless books with authors stating their own ideas (pro and con) about the UFO/Foo-fighter phenomenon, I have come to the conclusion that we are still in the "blank". That is, I cannot tell you if they are real or myth. I still have to search some more. I´ll have to ask the nice folks down at Area 51 if they will let me see what´s inside their secret vaults. :wink:

Anyway, I also agree very much on what Mister. krztalizer had to say about pilot fatigue and seeing some things a bit distorted and reporting them as some sort of aerial U.F.O.

One must keep in mind that alot of these wartime pilots had to fly numerous hours before reaching the combat/bombing zones and then had to fly back for another number of hours until reaching their own airfields. So if I was a pilot at the time and I had just flown a sortie with extreme fear of combat and flight fatigue I would start to see strange phenomena too.
Only time will reveal it´s secret. But one day we shall find out the truth.

Until then it´s good to dream of things that might have been... and things that are ...and those things we cannot explain them (yet) :D

Good Luck on ALL YOUR researches guys *two thumbs up*

User avatar
PPoS
Member
Posts: 848
Joined: 22 Sep 2004, 13:35
Location: Sweden

#66

Post by PPoS » 30 Dec 2005, 18:49

Admitted, this identification is speculation, on my part. If you have a copy of the testing schedule for the Ba349, would you send me a transcript? I haven't been able to obtain one, yet.
No I do not have that I'm afraid, but still you must be realistic - the Bachem 349 ''Natter'' was not made/capable of flying at night time. I know this have been discussed in the forums here before.
It would be more accurate to say that later commentators have claimed that pilots were sure the foo-fighters were under some kind of intelligent control. The mission reports and war diaries typically report nothing but 'lights', while the earliest newspaper and magazine articles (1944 and 1945) say only that Allied aircraft were 'followed'.
Yes you are right, my bad. But still, if they were following the allied A/C it seems more likely that they were under some kind of control.
Again, it would be more accurate to say that later commentators have claimed that eyewitnesses saw Mantell's P-51 explode before it crashed. The logs from Godman AFB say only that the tower lost sight of the UFO at 15:50 hours, and that Mantell crashed a few minutes later. The accident report on the crash states only that the P-51 had lost lost a wing due to excessive speed in a dive, after Mantell had 'blacked out' due to the lack of oxygen. Mantell's body had not burned, it had not disintegrated, and it was not full of holes, as some authors have claimed, since the 1970s. Neither was the wreckage radioactive, nor inexplicably magnetised.
Did not know this information, thanks for clearing that out for me.

roggenwolf
Member
Posts: 29
Joined: 10 Apr 2005, 01:56
Location: Australia
Contact:

#67

Post by roggenwolf » 31 Dec 2005, 02:28

PPoS wrote:No I do not have that I'm afraid, but still you must be realistic - the Bachem 349 ''Natter'' was not made/capable of flying at night time. I know this have been discussed in the forums here before.
Being realistic is the name of the game. Looks like my Ba 349 hypothesis isn't tenable, and probably I should ditch it. The article, in which a foo-fighter was said to start as a red light, turn into a small aircraft and then perform a wing-over was certainly suggestive, and didn't seem to indicate an un-manned missile.

On the other hand, given recent insights into the general hopelessness of aircrews, when it comes to interpreting met phenomena, the whole 'wing-over' comment could easily be a red herring. Sure, it could have been based upon a sighting of some kind of un-manned missile, which simply burned out and fell. After reading up on the 'ghost rockets' that appeared in 1946, though, I could just as easily conclude that it was a misinterpreted aerial phenomenon that the witness talked himself into remembering as a small aircraft. In psychology, this process is often called 'escalation of hypothesis': it's basically an attempt to rationalise strange events by running through a series of mundane explanations until one is found, which seems to explain everything that was witnessed.

Again with reference to 'ghost rockets' in Sweden, it's worth noting that descriptions very much like V-1 and V-2 missiles were frequently offered. The idea that missiles were being shot over Scandinavia probably seemed like a good explanation for the things that were being seen because, during World War II, no less than seven stray German missiles had actually crashed in Sweden. Of these, all but one — the so-called ‘Bäckebo bomb‘ — were examples of the Fieseler Fi 103. The ‘Bäckebo bomb‘, on the other hand, was an experimental device, based upon the Aggregat-4 rocket.

However, all of these German missiles left identifiable remains, when they crashed. The most anyone ever recovered from a 'ghost rocket crash site' was a few ambiguous chunks that eventually were identified as meteorite fragments. In the end, physicist Dr Manne Siegbahn declared that no real evidence of foreign missiles had been found.
PPoS wrote:Yes you are right, my bad. But still, if they were following the allied A/C it seems more likely that they were under some kind of control.
Certainly it suggests intelligent control, but to claim it without testing alternatives, first, might be to fall into the same kind of error that I made, regarding the Ba 349.

All kinds of relativistic effects come into play, when observing things in the sky from a moving frame of reference. Many times, I have 'seen' commercial jet aircraft seem to hover in the air, when I was observing them from trains that were moving away from the point at which the aeroplane's course crossed the train tracks. It's physically impossible, of course, but the illusion was perfect. Conversely, I have 'seen' similar aircraft flash past at what appeared to be incredible speeds, when on a train that was moving toward the point at which the flightpath crossed the tracks.

This kind of illusion is made possible by the fact that, in an open sky, there are no stationary objects against which the size and speed of an object may be reliably measured. In other words, there is no frame of reference.

For similar reasons, atmospheric optical phenomena, such as halos, sun dogs, sun pillars and fata morgana (superior mirages) can appear to move with an observer. Consider rainbows: no matter how far you travel toward one, a rainbow seems to remain the same distance away. Likewise, no matter how far you move away from a rainbow, it appears to maintain its distance from you. If you didn't know any better, you might even think that it was pacing you.

A sun dog — also known as a parhelion — is a relatively common atmospheric optical phenomenon, which is associated with the reflection and refraction of sunlight through the numerous small ice-crystals that make up cirrus or cirrostratus clouds. Sun dogs typically appear as a bright, and sometimes colourful, spot in the sky that is located 22° to either side of the sun. Sun dogs are closely related to, and sometimes appear together with, halos.

Because the phenomenon is created by internal reflections in ice-crystals, sun dogs are produced only by clouds that are cold enough to consist entirely of ice-crystals; clouds of this type can only exist at temperatures below –40°C. For this reason sun dogs — and associated phenomena, such as sun pillars — are common in Antarctica. In the middle latitudes, however, such cold temperatures are usually found only at high altitudes — typically above 7000m.

The Allied bombers, which took part in the missions against the German Reich, typically operated at altitudes ranging from 3000m to 7500m. It is therefore conceivable that the crews of the aircraft that comprised these ‘bomber streams’ could occasionally see sun dogs. Indeed, in ‘The Foo-Fighter Mystery’, Jo Chamberlin relates:
a P-47 pilot saw 'a gold-colored ball, with a metallic finish, which appeared to be moving slowly through the air. As the sun was low, it was impossible to tell whether the sun reflected off it, or the light came from within.'
The Republic P-47 Thunderbolt was typically deployed as a high-altitude escort for bombing raids. The fact that the altitude at which this sighting was made is nowhere mentioned presents a significant stumbling block to certainty; however, the conditions under which this particular sighting was made could have been ideal and so it must be conceded that it could have involved a sun dog.

Having said as much, the fact that the missions flown by the 415th Night Fighter Squadron were necessarily flown at night would seem entirely to disqualify sun dogs as likely culprits for the ‘balls of fire’ that were reported by this unit.

Still, there's always ball lightning ... Frequently called upon as a comfortably ‘scientific’ explanation for paranormal and other mysterious events — including Will-o’-the-wisps, ghosts, foo-fighters and ‘flying saucers’ — ball lightning itself was, ironically, treated as folklore until quite recent times. This is largely due to the fact that ball lightning has been described — and even photographed — by hundreds of eyewitnesses; but rarely, if ever, has it been recorded by meteorologists.

To complicate matters further, there is as yet no widely accepted physical explanation for ball lightning.

Scepticism notwithstanding, ball lightning seems to be a natural phenomenon — or, perhaps, a number of different, but related, natural phenomena — which is typically described as a floating, illuminated ball, most often red or yellow in colour, that usually appears during thunderstorms. Sometimes these discharges appear to be attracted to objects but, at other times, their movements seem entirely random. They can be fast moving, slow moving, or nearly stationary. Some make hissing or crackling noises, while others make no noise at all. Still others have been claimed to pass through closed windows or dissipate with a bang.

In the past, the traditional association of ball lightning with thunderstorms has been the principal bar to a general acceptance of this phenomenon as a plausible explanation for sightings of foo-fighters. However, recent research undertaken in Japan has revealed that ball lightning has been seen, several times, without any connection to stormy weather or ordinary lightning. In light of this new information, it now seems likely that at least some foo-fighter sightings could be attributed to ball lightning — particularly those cases in which foo-fighters were said to ‘play tag’ with Allied aircraft.

The point I really want to make is that there is a wide range of known phenomena that could supply possible — and plausible — explanations for foo-fighter sightings. These possibilities need to be tested and disproved before we start to look for unknown causes. There's a long way to go before the idea that foo-fighters were really unknown aircraft — either terrestrial or extraterrestrial — becomes the only possible explanation.

User avatar
PPoS
Member
Posts: 848
Joined: 22 Sep 2004, 13:35
Location: Sweden

#68

Post by PPoS » 31 Dec 2005, 17:17

Yes I'm very well aware of the Scandinavian "Ghost Rocket" subject and have been researching it for a couple of years now. I even live a few miles from a "Ghost Rocket" crash site.

And I'm also very aware of the different possible explanations to what the "Foo Fighters" could be. Maybe it's best for everyone if I just say what I think;

I don't know what the "Foo Fighters" are/were, I'm not saying that they are/were a German invention, I'm not saying that they are/were an alien craft from space. I'm pretty open minded to the subject and have gone through all possiblities for the solution to the subject.

So I don't really need any large explanations to the different phenomenas that could be the "Foo Fighters" I'm afraid. What we should do is to go through every single possibility that we can find and discuss them closer. Then we can start to erase some theories that doesn't seem to be true.

I can't prove that the Foo Fighters DID exist
You can't prove that the Foo Fighters DIDN'T exist
And the other way around if you prefer

Regards

roggenwolf
Member
Posts: 29
Joined: 10 Apr 2005, 01:56
Location: Australia
Contact:

#69

Post by roggenwolf » 31 Dec 2005, 17:24

I'm sorry if I have offended you. I thought that this was a discussion about the topic of foo-fighters, and the 'large explanation' was for the benefit of everyone, who reads this thread.

For the record, I'm not trying to prove that foo-fighters didn't exist. It's fairly obvious that something was being seen.

User avatar
PPoS
Member
Posts: 848
Joined: 22 Sep 2004, 13:35
Location: Sweden

#70

Post by PPoS » 31 Dec 2005, 18:40

No no no no .. I'm not offended at all .. Maybe I put it out wrong. :P
I'm really enjoying this conversation because I'm so interested in the subject and I would really want to continue discussing this with you.

When I wrote :
I can't prove that the Foo Fighters DID exist
You can't prove that the Foo Fighters DIDN'T exist
And the other way around if you prefer

It was just an example ..

User avatar
Davide Pastore
Member
Posts: 2768
Joined: 26 Nov 2005, 23:05
Location: Germagnano, Italy
Contact:

#71

Post by Davide Pastore » 31 Dec 2005, 18:57

roggenwolf wrote:For the record, I'm not trying to prove that foo-fighters didn't exist.
BTW, according to many centuries of philosophy, it is impossible to prove that a thing does NOT exist.

However, the existence of something can easily be proven. Just show it.

Davide

ohrdruf
Member
Posts: 862
Joined: 15 May 2004, 23:02
Location: south america

#72

Post by ohrdruf » 17 Jan 2006, 19:11

Let us take a hypothetical case. We have Mr Pastore in custody. We have the alleged murder weapon. A mountain of reports. But unfortunately, to date, we do not have the dead body of the dear departed Mrs Pastore, and are unable to charge her husband with her murder because we do not know if she be dead or alive. That is where we stand today as detectives investigating the Foo-Fighter phenomenon and, contrary to what our suspect says, it is no easy matter to prove the existence of certain physical things if they have been diligently hidden.


The former Allies have declassified up to a thousand USAF and RAF aircrew reports regarding "foo-fighters". Most of these reports have been censored, many heavily censored. Accordingly there is something about "foo-fighters" which lead us to think that there was far more to them than mere "natural meteorological phenomenon." Former servants of the Third Reich charged with the custody of its greater secrets also do not desire that we should know about this project for, let there be no doubt about it, it went abroad at the end of the war.


What follows is mainly for those who in this thread have expressed a belief in the existence of foo-fighters as a German aeronautical development.


A few years ago I came across a declassified US Army foo-fighter report. I mentioned it in my book in 2001. An American infantry unit camped near the Mannheim autobahn by night saw a number of "large glowing balls" coming in to land "in a small wood". Each appeared to be under independent control, wobbling rather like an aircraft. Beyond the small wood they disappeared from sight.

In response to my request, a few weeks ago a German contact gave me details of a private publication by "a UFO fanatic" in which a similar incident was quoted. Sources in Germany discounted the report as "probably imaginary". However, it appears to pre-date the archive release of the US document.

A correspondent wrote to the "UFO fanatic" recounting an incident on the Mannheim autobahn towards the end of the war. The car driver found that his engine cut out suddenly. This also happened to all other car drivers on that stretch of the highway. Black-uniformed Gestapo arrived and lined the side of the road. Several unidentified flying objects flew overhead, probably having taken off from the small airfield at Neuostheim hidden behind a small wood. Shortly afterwards, the Gestapo warned occupants of all cars to say nothing of what they had seen, and after a few moments electrical transmission was restored.

In the same way that it is impossible to estimate distance at night, it was impossible for Allied aircrew to estimate the size of the "glowing balls of fire" close to their aircraft in what appeared to be another Airspace. Estimates varied from "basketball-sized" to "as big as a fighter plane", and now we suspect that the latter was more likely. Less likely, accordingly, is that "foo-fighters" were remote controlled. We have to take into consideration the possibility that they were crewed.

This theory fits in with the suspicion that the unidentified flying objects sighted over Sweden and Norway in 1945 and 1946 were manned aircraft flying in another Airspace. We cannot explain this Airspace except to say that accidental tragedies are known to have occurred in something resembling it (see the depositions and court papers for the USN Enquiry into the Five Avenger Aircraft lost in December 1945, for example).

User avatar
Davide Pastore
Member
Posts: 2768
Joined: 26 Nov 2005, 23:05
Location: Germagnano, Italy
Contact:

#73

Post by Davide Pastore » 17 Jan 2006, 19:54

ohrdruf wrote:That is where we stand today as detectives investigating the Foo-Fighter phenomenon and, contrary to what our suspect says, it is no easy matter to prove the existence of certain physical things if they have been diligently hidden.
This doesn't concern me. I did not say that it is simple or difficult - The important thing is, it is possible to prove it (discovering the corpse, for example).

OTOH, it is impossible to prove that the disappeared Mrs. Pastore had NOT been abducted by aliens. We can say it is an event with a very low probability, and there is no known case of such event having occurred in the town in the last millennium, but it might have occurred without any witness to report it.

Davide

Salazar
Member
Posts: 72
Joined: 24 Oct 2004, 11:41
Location: Europe

#74

Post by Salazar » 23 Jan 2006, 01:35

ohrdruf wrote:
A correspondent wrote to the "UFO fanatic" recounting an incident on the Mannheim autobahn towards the end of the war. The car driver found that his engine cut out suddenly. This also happened to all other car drivers on that stretch of the highway. Black-uniformed Gestapo arrived and lined the side of the road. Several unidentified flying objects flew overhead, probably having taken off from the small airfield at Neuostheim hidden behind a small wood. Shortly afterwards, the Gestapo warned occupants of all cars to say nothing of what they had seen, and after a few moments electrical transmission was restored.
.
THis is more the script of a Phillip K. Dick book. :)
How many people wewe drivin in autobahn by the end of the war... In what cars and with what fuel ? :)

roggenwolf
Member
Posts: 29
Joined: 10 Apr 2005, 01:56
Location: Australia
Contact:

#75

Post by roggenwolf » 23 Jan 2006, 04:03

Score! (With bonus points for mentioning Philip K. Dick.) :D

Post Reply

Return to “Luftwaffe air units and Luftwaffe in general”