'Forum going downhill', etiquette and behaviour standards - please read!

[overscan (PaulMM)]

I've received a number of complaint recently about user behavior. I've not been reading the forum that much recently due to being busy with other stuff.

My intentions in starting this site are clear in the title. UNBUILT PROJECTS, MILITARY and AEROSPACE TECHNOLOGY. It's got a bit broader than that due to the wishes of the forum membership, but this is where my personal interests lie. In fact, personally I'm only interested in 1950s onwards within those areas and generally only aircraft and missiles. These are the sections I visit often.

In the beginning of the forum 11 years ago, I and several other researchers did a lot of donkey work going through NASA reports, books, magazines, foreign language websites and forums, and posting interesting things we found here on the forum.

Now, some of the those people are sick, dead, or busy with other things. Several of us are now published authors and hence are probably researching things for a published article or book and hence less likely to share their findings in a public forum. Additionally, with tools like Blogspot.com its much easier for people to post their research themselves rather than relying on a forum like this.

That doesn't mean there isn't interesting stuff out there. If you find some interesting stuff on the Shenyang J-15 on a Chinese forum post it here for us all to read and appreciate. Search through http://contrails.iit.edu, http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/, https://www.sti.nasa.gov. Buy old aviation magazines or obscure books and read through them. Google projects you like and see if there's new material out there and share it on the forum.

This is the core of the forum I wanted to see. Not discussions on budgets, American politics, or Chinese geo-political ambitions. It can only happen if people make it happen. Make the posts you want to read.

Now, off-topic subjects might be interesting to some sections of the forum memberships, and (like with any group of people) off-topic discussions will occur and that isn't a problem. They can't be allowed to derail and interfere with the core mission of the forum, however. If you read a topic and it makes you think of an off-topic reply, by all means create a new topic.

If users can refrain from personal attacks, and stick to facts, then opposing political views shouldn't be a problem. Users who cannot comply on either side of the political spectrum may face post moderation.

To answer a post Orionblamblam made elsewhere - I AM very interested in users' opinions as well as facts - but opinions on the technical aspects of a spacecraft design, not on the previous or current US president or whether China is a geopolitical threat etc etc.

Thoughts are welcome.

 

[Triton]

I've been hearing gripes about the "forum going downhill" for the eight years I have been active on the Secret Projects forums. This is a perennial gripe, mostly from members who disagree with the information that is posted on the forums, mostly for political reasons. We can't separate unbuilt projects from the dimension of politics, especially projects that are ordered by governments. So partially, forum members have to become a lot less sensitive to arguments that they disagree with and be a little more thick-skinned, tolerant, and polite to other members. We need a lot less petulance and the biggest gripers about the forums going down hill also tend to be the most petulant and intolerant on the forums.

Next, I believe that the time has come to prune the forum of off-topic boards. The boards need to serve the core mission of the Secret Projects forums. If members want to discuss topics that are not part of the core mission of the Secret Projects forums, they should go to other discussion forums or social media. I believe that this will go a long way in preventing future conflicts between members. Is "The Bar" on mission? "Alternate History and Future Speculation" on mission? If not, delete it.

Lastly, and I have made this point many times before, it is not the place of forum members to be moderators, or to get even with another member, using the Reply function. Members should enhance their calm and then use the "Report to moderator" function if they have an issue. Further, there is nothing more useless than a Reply to point out a redundant posting of an article or images. "Report to moderator" or shut up.

 

[Avimimus]

It is a tough job being a moderator and a tough job holding the line ...especially when issues like past military procurement decisions inherently have some political/international impacts that will come up.

It does get a bit much sometimes. Even without the name calling - there have been a few opinions promoted on the forum over the years that would qualify as hate speech in my country (Canada). That isn't what I come to this forum for.

So I might appreciate and fully cooperate with a slightly stronger policy. That said, I've only found and uploaded a few unique articles over there years, and I'm a fairly minor forum member, so I'd tend to defer.

 

[bobbymike]

I've been hearing gripes about the "forum going downhill" for the eight years I have been active on the Secret Projects forums. This is a perennial gripe, mostly from members who disagree with the information that is posted on the forums, mostly for political reasons. We can't separate unbuilt projects from the dimension of politics, especially projects that are ordered by governments. So partially, forum members have to become a lot less sensitive to arguments that they disagree with and be a little more thick-skinned, tolerant, and polite to other members. We need a lot less petulance and the biggest gripers about the forums going down hill also tend to be the most petulant and intolerant on the forums.

Next, I believe that the time has come to prune the forum of off-topic boards. The boards need to serve the core mission of the Secret Projects forums. If members want to discuss topics that are not part of the core mission of the Secret Projects forums, they should go to other discussion forums or social media. I believe that this will go a long way in preventing future conflicts between members. Is "The Bar" on mission? "Alternate History and Future Speculation" on mission? If not, delete it.

Lastly, and I have made this point many times before, it is not the place of forum members to be moderators, or to get even with another member, using the Reply function. Members should enhance their calm and then use the "Report to moderator" function if they have an issue. Further, there is nothing more useless than a Reply to point out a redundant posting of an article or images. "Report to moderator" or shut up.

Almost in complete agreement where I slightly differ is that if we can follow your first paragraph then I believe the "Bar" does serve a purpose. A lot of threads with nothing to do with aerospace/defense I've found nevertheless very interesting and glad a member thought so as well and shared. Limited to this one area seems mostly harmless IMHO.

 

[Rickshaw]

I believe the forum is reflecting society, particularly American society. American society has become more partisan, more polarised and more extreme in it's views over the years. Once it was tolerant of alternative viewpoints, today, neither side is willing to listen to the other's views and accept them as being relevant or tolerable. Outside of America, western societies are still tolerant of dissent. Conformity is not the norm.

I would recommend either turning the forum into a purely technical one - one where only technical information is shared, by trimming off the non-technical sub-forums or accepting that dissent will continue as long as members become too partisan in their viewpoints. I can live with either form.

 

[marauder2048]

Compare:

Outside of America, western societies are still tolerant of dissent. Conformity is not the norm.

with:

It does get a bit much sometimes. Even without the name calling - there have been a few opinions promoted on the forum over the years that would qualify as hate speech in my country (Canada).

It's sometimes difficult to divorce politics from the technical discussions because they are often intertwined.

Example: The MMIII Stage 1 replacement effort resulted in a missile with less range because
the preferred ablative material, Avcoat, did not comply with new EPA standards.

We can try to separate it out in the posts proper with special characters/tags and can encourage
a topic move to the "The Bar" when/if things get heated.

Personally, I'm not bothered by the petulance, intolerance or prickliness; people are here and contribute
because they are passionate. It's probably inevitable that such passion goes astray especially
in a text medium where it's easy to misinterpret tone/intent and where the connection between our
ego and fingers + submit can be short and fast.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

By the way, apologies for emailing this out - I accidentally selected the "announce" button without meaning to.

In regards to the core "unbuilt projects" topic, this naturally has run a bit out of steam as all the easy work of finding stuff available online, or in mainstream books etc, has largely been accomplished. It represents only a small fraction of the actual project stuff, but the rest resides in archives, attics, and private collections or has been lost forever.

 

[kcran567]

Maybe allow some leeway in the "bar" for opinion, but let the aerospace and other related topics be more factual, engineering based and informative. I'm guilty myself of letting opinions into topics where not needed.

There are a few very good members on here that provide most of the hardware "nuts and bolts" information and analysis (you know who you are), and not enough credit given for their knowledge and generosity, so thank you. You are what makes this such a good place to visit.

 

[dan_inbox]

First, I agree with what has been said about the "non-core-mission" sections of the forum. They can serve a useful purpose, but they also attract the current-events and therefore politics and less-welcome posts. Especially the current-events areas.

OTOH, rather than agreeing with the idea that "the forum is going downhill" compared to earlier times, my impression is that the "downhill" is in fact coming from only a few members, who have been taking much worse liberties recently. Taunting, name-calling, long private feuds on a public thread, all that has grown, but only from a few members, always the same. Subjective impression, less than a dozen.

If this view is shared that there are in fact only a few troublemakers, and unless the moderators are willing to spend ever more time shepherding those misbehavers [here, I want to salute the surprisingly endless patience and gentle diplomacy of the mods], then the remedy should be clear: straighten up those few offenders.

On other forums this is often done by a 2-weeks suspension of posting rights for the offenders. On both sides if it is feud. Not only this mechanically limits the noise, it also cools off the hotheads: it must be sobering to have one's ranking changed for a fortnight from "clearance: top secret" or whatever, to "suspended for infractions" on all one's posts. Not quite the pillory at the city gate, but...
It can be seen as more fair than locking up a thread, because only the offenders get blocked.

IIRC, a typical penalty scale is 2 weeks for a small offence, then 1 month, then outright banning of the IP for hate/spam/insults/etc. Not 100% airtight, but pretty effective.

 

[Graham1973]

As someone who has made contributions to various areas of the forum, including The Bar, I think I've been lucky in avoiding the name calling and when it comes to political threads I don't participate in them. I would be concerned if the 'Theoretical & Speculative' board disappeared though as most of my recent posts have been there in the 'Fictional Warships' thread.

 

[Schneiderman]

Its not something I have encountered on the threads I read but it is unfortunately a fact of life on most forums. If those who are engaging in such activity have no track record of providing useful information on topics then just bar them permanently.

 

[bobbymike]

Its not something I have encountered on the threads I read but it is unfortunately a fact of life on most forums. If those who are engaging in such activity have no track record of providing useful information on topics then just bar them permanently.

Agree and each member has statistics attached to their names, how many threads have been started how many links to information have been provided with their posts. I've taken the time to thank Grey Havoc for the several links daily he posts for the benefit of all members. He is taking the time, as he scans various websites, to bring that information back to the forum that invariable saves us time searching or more than likely missing the story all together in our busy days.

So again thanks Grey Havoc.

 

[avion ancien]

I have to say that rarely do I venture outside the Early Aircraft Projects forum - and judging by what has been said, I must assume that the regulars there are, comparatively, a pretty docile bunch. However I do accept that, even there, one sees a little straying 'out of bounds' but, perhaps, that is only because there's often a very fine line between an unbuilt project and something that was built, but never flew or crashed on its first flight or similar. So perhaps a little discretion might be permitted so long as it amounts to straying not far beyond the bounds rather than passing out of sight of the bounds!

 

[Skyraider3D]

In regards to the core "unbuilt projects" topic, this naturally has run a bit out of steam as all the easy work of finding stuff available online, or in mainstream books etc, has largely been accomplished. It represents only a small fraction of the actual project stuff, but the rest resides in archives, attics, and private collections or has been lost forever.

Still plenty left to discover! Dan Sharp (newdeskdan) has been doing a tremendous job in discovering lots of "new" materials on Luftwaffe projects.
And in my job as aviation illustrator I am often given reference material by my clients, with (unfortunately) a strong "please don't share" message attached to it, which also proves there is still plenty of stuff out there waiting to be published.
And indeed there's tons of stuff on the NASA Technical Server, which is essentially published, but has yet to be "discovered".

 

[starviking]

Whilst there are some parts of the forum where things can get a bit heated at times, I, for one, would miss the range that the SPF covers if pruning were to occur. The range, in and of itself, is not that special - it's the depth of knowledge that many members bring with them. That is extremely valuable, and I would miss it deeply.

I think the suggested warnings, followed by cooling-down periods would be a good approach for now.

 

[steelpillow]

First, let me say how delighted I am with the general decorum across this forum. I have recently withdrawn from another one because the moderators were not up to the task, and indeed were among the offenders.

I have seen many discussion areas in many walks of life and there are some widely-adopted rules which stand out:

1. Encourage members to first try and work out any minor differences between themselves, and only come to the moderators when that fails. This runs contrary to PaulMM's expressed preference, as I understand it. My view is that human nature will always bring a wide variation in engagement skills to any forum, and abrogating responsibility to someone uphill will not help the noisier folks to take that responsibility for themselves. Constant calling on the moderator also puts pressure on them to be right all the time. But if our Overscan prefers it that way, I will of course respect it.

2. Do not tolerate any kind of abuse. Even where offence is not intended, if it has been taken then an apology for giving the wrong impression is necessary. When a moderator does come down, come down hard. The two-strike rule is common: one written warning, followed by a lengthy ban. If that fails, or if the misdemeanour is gross, then the user is gone for good.

I also feel that the political background is key to the history of many secret projects, and while History may have speculated and judged as part of that process, our individual contributors' personal speculation and judgement should be kept out of any discussion. This may require some pruning, for example I long contributed to one internal corporate forum which had to ban all discussion of its in-house sports competitions because staff could not restrain criticism of opposing team members. Only bald announcements of engagements and results were allowed. I seldom frequent the Bar here, but from what people are saying, perhaps it could do with some tighter house rules.

 

[CJGibson]

I agree with Ronnie. Still loads to discover. When I was working on Atlas I was gobsmacked by what I found on projects that had been discussed and described at length and even something like the Belfast, done to death apparently, held surprises.

Chris

 

[hesham]

Hi,

I think my dear Paul meant that,there is no reason to drive the posts or topics
rather than the goals of this forum,such as Politics.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

I agree with Ronnie. Still loads to discover. When I was working on Atlas I was gobsmacked by what I found on projects that had been discussed and described at length and even something like the Belfast, done to death apparently, held surprises.

Chris

Of course there is - but mostly not posted online or yet in published books or mags. It requires much more effort.

 

[Mike Pryce]

Yes, masses to discover. Strange how t'internet is held responsible for death of publishing, yet much of it depends on previously published print material for its content.

My two cents - the forum is a great resource, but putting original research here means less chance to publish. Trips to archives etc. cost money. Although I get paid to do it these days, for 15 years it was all at my expense. Reasonable to recoup that. If the forum can continue to support and benefit from authors, thereby getting new material while not discouraging publishing, that would be good.

For all the argy bargy stuff, there is Twitter.

 

[Hood]

There certainly is lots of new projects and more details on what we already know about still left to discover.

In my view a post here with some specs and/or a picture is not comparable to a fully written article or book where you can get the context and background stuff in more detail. Paul's recent F-16 Evolution freebee is an example of that. So I share what I hope is interesting to everyone here, by no means are you getting the full picture but hopefully its spurs further research (or inspires a purchase!). However, for sheer breadth of coverage and information no book could ever compare to the contents of this forum!

I always go by a "wheat to chaff ratio", if there's too much chaff on a thread I stop reading it. One shouldn't confuse politics with history, the procurement politics of the 1950s-70s is history and we should make the best objective judgements based on the material we have. Current procurement issues are always political and can inflame personal opinions, but again you should have objectivity. We don't have all the background information even in this supposed age of information, we won't know what's behind the public statements and powerpoints until our children and grandchildren drop down to the archives. Sadly though I suspect many companies and governments will either maliciously or unthinkingly discard many of their electronic records, they may not bother to keep the expense of file storage and by 2067 we probably won't be able to open those old files anyway.

 

[Foo Fighter]

It is difficult to reduce topics to purely the technical because just about every piece of kit used or not has a large element of politics in it. Off topic discussions in the bar if they are removed will, along with purely technical discussion, merely remove membership from the forum which may be the aim but could result in stagnation of the forum, I have seen similar results elsewhere. I notice that opinion can be delivered as fact and as is common on a forum, it is impossible to know the experience that drives those opinions which imho, is one of the reasons for discussion becoming heated. The M1 replacement topic is a case in point where opinion being without reference, caused problems.

Arguments WILL happen and I have never known a forum where peace reigns supreme ad infinitum. As someone who has managed a forum myself I know from experience that the written word, without the non verbal communication contained in face to face discussion, can become heated quicker than a kettle boiling. The thing is, this is as natural as breathing for some people and it does NOT mean they are less worthy, they just have a short fuse and or are highly opinionated. They just may know more than the person with x, y or z opinion.

Considering some of the fori out there, this is definitely one of the better sites in my experience and any talk of reducing to a strictly technical discussion will mean the forum losing out in the long term. I appologise for any offence I have given and forgive that against me, I can only hope the forum can be allowed to grow in the same way face to face discussions do, without being forced.

 

[NeilChapman]

There certainly is lots of new projects and more details on what we already know about still left to discover.

In my view a post here with some specs and/or a picture is not comparable to a fully written article or book where you can get the context and background stuff in more detail. Paul's recent F-16 Evolution freebee is an example of that. So I share what I hope is interesting to everyone here, by no means are you getting the full picture but hopefully its spurs further research (or inspires a purchase!). However, for sheer breadth of coverage and information no book could ever compare to the contents of this forum!

I always go by a "wheat to chaff ratio", if there's too much chaff on a thread I stop reading it. i.) One shouldn't confuse politics with history, the procurement politics of the 1950s-70s is history and we should make the best objective judgements based on the material we have. Current procurement issues are always political and can inflame personal opinions, but again you should have objectivity. We don't have all the background information even in this supposed age of information, we won't know what's behind the public statements and powerpoints until our children and grandchildren drop down to the archives. Sadly though I suspect many companies and governments will either maliciously or unthinkingly discard many of their electronic records, they may not bother to keep the expense of file storage and by 2067 we probably won't be able to open those old files anyway.

i.) True. And as you further state, current events become history. When I first joined SPF it was interesting to read through some of the threads and "see" as programs developed, decisions made (including political) and projects completed. In that respect, SPF has become, perhaps unintentionally, a repository for the history of some programs. Why, politically, a design was adopted is as important as the technical specifications as it frequently determines technical specifications. A point well made by marauder2048 in a prior post.

The politics are the history of "why" a project was built. No one spends an inordinate amount of treasure to build a project just for giggles. Yes, there are technical objectives, but those are set to meet a political objectives.

There are folks that are less interested in the why. Or maybe, the "why" of their interests is not available. For them, it's all about the rest of the W's. Perhaps that was the original intent of the forum.

It's really up to you the moderators. To include the "why", you have to put up with the arguments that go with it.

That being said, you can insist that arguments be civil.

 

[sferrin]

I've been hearing gripes about the "forum going downhill" for the eight years I have been active on the Secret Projects forums. This is a perennial gripe, mostly from members who disagree with the information that is posted on the forums, mostly for political reasons. We can't separate unbuilt projects from the dimension of politics, especially projects that are ordered by governments. So partially, forum members have to become a lot less sensitive to arguments that they disagree with and be a little more thick-skinned, tolerant, and polite to other members. We need a lot less petulance and the biggest gripers about the forums going down hill also tend to be the most petulant and intolerant on the forums.

Next, I believe that the time has come to prune the forum of off-topic boards. The boards need to serve the core mission of the Secret Projects forums. If members want to discuss topics that are not part of the core mission of the Secret Projects forums, they should go to other discussion forums or social media. I believe that this will go a long way in preventing future conflicts between members. Is "The Bar" on mission? "Alternate History and Future Speculation" on mission? If not, delete it.

Lastly, and I have made this point many times before, it is not the place of forum members to be moderators, or to get even with another member, using the Reply function. Members should enhance their calm and then use the "Report to moderator" function if they have an issue. Further, there is nothing more useless than a Reply to point out a redundant posting of an article or images. "Report to moderator" or shut up.

This man gets my vote. That said, the times I've considered running forum, I've wondered if one section (for example The Bar or "Other") were somewhat tolerant of heated discussion (but not bloodshed, name-calling, etc.) if that might actually be beneficial. But then crack down doubly hard on that type of behavior in the rest of the sections.

 

[Avimimus]

The 'Theoretical and Speculative projects' forum has some use for historical proposals which were not developed into full fledged projects. For instance, many designs submitted to magazines had varying degrees of credibility, but provide real insight into what the thinking was about aeronautical engineering at a given time. Much as with 'patent pending' it is useful to have a forum for these.

I personally think it is also valuable to have a space for analysing why designs were the way they were, and whether or not they would have worked. I've done calculations trying to infer why there were so few three-gun scouts in WWI, I've also tried to work out whether the CL-1201 would have had an upward pitching moment when in a hover (it appears that it had extra lift jets at the front that would not be used at full throttle in a hover, but would counter-act the backward movement of the centre of lift when flaps were fully deployed at low speed). However, I've not been sure where to post these topics, as they go beyond simple documentation of projects to asking about the 'whys' of engineering decisions in the past.

 

[72land]

I agree completely with the original post. Current politics are really not the point of this site. If people won't play nice, the moderator is fully justified in using the ban hammer.

 

[Jemiba]

We have sections more relevant to the forums original title, than others, but the reason for
problems never were the existence of those off-topic boards, but expressions of opinion, that
were regarded as a kind of personal attack. Sometimes I couldn't help the feeling, that some
people actually were waiting impatiently for such an opinion to surface !
But every quarrel needs at least two people to start, so principally no closing or locking of a
thread here was the responsibility of just one person. If those, who have problems to control
their temper wouldn't get an answer, they just would be a lone voice in the wilderness (And there
would be no need to delete their angry words not only in the original post, but in all the
quotations, too ... :)
Of course, often it's tempting to answer, preferably with harsh words and reluctance may cause
pain (those of us, who are married, may have a slight advantage ). Then your pharmacist warmly
recommends the "ignore list", free of addictive substances and not fattening.

And yes, the days of unknown projects, a dozen a day, are gone, but this makes the new ones
now even more worthwhile, many thanks to those sharing them.
Such a forum can be more, than just "look, what I've found" and then waiting for the next one.
It's not necessarily a kind of (one-sided) TV-event, but rather a board game party, where you
can play along (checking mentioned (!) sources, translations, drawings and so on, often enough
work for a lot of people ), just try to be a good sport if necessary!

 

[lark]

Wise words Jemiba spoke...

 

[Thorvic]

Just apply immediate long term bans on the frequent offenders next time they get into a spat, its generally the same people, they have had more than enough warnings to date so know the score and the consequences. Its the only way as its evident they will never learn to change their spots and will eventually get personal or abusive regardless of what juicy project stuff they occasionally dig up.

 

[Mark Nankivil]

Hi All -

I can't say I've seen a hard downhill slide on the forum - yes, some friction once in a while but a lot of times, someone is being rather thin skinned or taking personal offense when another posts a view or information contrary to their stance. Simply put, that's life but it does help to simply take a deep breath before deciding how to respond and then just move on. For some, easier said than done.

I fully agree that the moderators should take into account the input, or lack of, for those having issues (or are the issue). It's Paul's site and rulers rules rule! I am fine with that and will continue to enjoy what I read here and when I find something I feel worthy of posting, happily sharing. And I'll share my opinion when it I think it is worthy and take care not to pose it as a absolute or one where the other side is called a name or their intelligence or lack thereof is is called into question.

Paul, I really appreciate what you have done putting this into existence and for its longevity and for the continued value of what is posted here. It is really amazing what is out there and how much I am sure is yet to be found or uncovered that can be shared.

Enjoy the Day! Mark

 

[Arjen]

One question: Is it possible within the forum SW to enable users to block or avoid specific topics? This might enable folks to avoid topics, and resulting commentary, that they find offensive or uninteresting.

If that is possible, I haven't found out how. Since the identities of the few repeat offenders are known, an alternative would be to use the ignore list.

Profile > Forum profile > Modify profile > Buddies/ignore list > Edit ignore list

You can make blocked replies temporarily visible without changing your ignore list.
I haven't resorted to using it myself on this site. I am using it on another site with a much higher oik/contributor-ratio. Some of the oiks there are familiar, some are strangers.

Mods, you are doing great keeping the forum enjoyable. This is my favourite website - period.

 

[Schneiderman]

Paul, so the general consensus appears to be that there's not much wrong with the forum and in general all is OK. So 'if it ain't broke don't fix it' , you and the mods are doing a great job and we all appreciate what you do.
Cheers
Ralph

 

[Ray]

I lurk on this site and have only made several posts; however, I open it daily to review. Once in a great while, I see a post that sounds a little 'snarky' but that is rare. All in all, this is one of the best forums around and the knowledge of the members never fails to impress. Thus, perhaps a hand needs to be slapped on occasion but I think the forum is just fine. I love it. Thank you to the moderators and all participants.

 

[steelpillow]

Just apply immediate long term bans on the frequent offenders next time they get into a spat, its generally the same people, they have had more than enough warnings to date so know the score and the consequences. Its the only way as its evident they will never learn to change their spots and will eventually get personal or abusive regardless of what juicy project stuff they occasionally dig up.

Agree 100%. Somebody else will dig it up one day anyway.

 

[XP67_Moonbat]

Oh, looks like I'm late to this party!

Incidentally, I just got out of Facebook Jail for freedom of speech/"bad manners" this week, How ironic, huh?

 

[Gerard]

This my favourite tech / serious forum for aircraft and modern mil tech projects news. I've been reading it for some years, and see no reason to stop my weekly visits here.

Yes, some people will argue at times, but every forum will have that. You're doing fine here, keep the forum and all the current sections going, please.


Regards,
Gerard

 

[pavel]

Excuse me for my opinion. The forum - the world's best living encyclopedia of the history of aerospace technology. Very good and qualitative archives.

 

[dan_inbox]

taking about going downhill: Am I the only person to think that nazi UFOs do not really fit this forum's minimal quality standards?
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,28495.0.html

Or anybody's minimal quality standards, come to think of it.

It is good to have areas to relax and be silly, but sheesh...

 

[steelpillow]

taking about going downhill: Am I the only person to think that nazi UFOs do not really fit this forum's minimal quality standards?
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,28495.0.html

Or anybody's minimal quality standards, come to think of it.

It is good to have areas to relax and be silly, but sheesh...

Believe it or not, some studies into such circular-wing VTOL craft were carried out in wartime Germany and supported by the odd senior official. While "odd" is the operative judgement here (in both senses of the word), I would say that the minimal support the idea received does justify its presence on this forum. IMHO any modern rendering should have some rational connection to that work or it has no place here. There is also the argument that spoof claims of any note need airing simply to establish their fraudulence (Luigi Colani comes to mind). I don't know enough to evaluate the rendering you link to, but it would certainly find a ready home on the what-if forum (My favourite area to relax).

 

[kcran567]

The LRVs probably had their origins somewhere in Nazi Germany so why not talk about Nazi UFOs? Wasn't there a British hacker who did jail time for hacking NASA and found files on "non-terrestrial officers". Truth is probably stranger than fiction.