• Hi Guest! Forum rules have been updated. All users please read here.

New Super Hornet UFO video from 2015

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,074
Reaction score
347
Sure. And they probably do have. I have to think the gov would be WAY more concerned if they actually thought they were LGM buzzing around in flying saucers. Still. . .if the pilots are being honest, it's strange. These aren't birds, "clouds of bugs", or weather balloons.
I'd say the pilots, (and the other witness' that have come forward) are being honest with stating what they think they saw. And it wasn't anything they were familar with or coud relate to a previous experiance. The thing is the behavior of the objects itself is a bit bizzare to say the least. I doubt they would be birds or weather balloons but I'm also not convinced they are not something natural given the behavior.

RAndy

The behavior of the objects has been purposely conveyed the wrong way by the US Air Force.
The incidents in question involved the USN not the USAF.
 

RanulfC

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Mar 6, 2009
Messages
670
Reaction score
94
What I "think" happened here? It's obvious.
Not as often as you might think :)

The Commanding General of the Army Air Force made a request to Air Materiel Command, Wright Field, Dayton Ohio and this is the answer he got after their intelligence and engineering people weighed in.
Example right here. The requestor, Brigader General Francis G. Schulgen was in fact assigned to (US Air Force, (having become a seperate service 5 days earlier they hadn't had time yet to change letter head or organizational charts and it would be the mid-50s before the public mentally accepted the service as a seperate entity) the Public Affairs Division. "Assigned" because he was already on track to retire about 8 months later (http://www.generals.dk/general/Schulgen/George_Francis/USA.html) and he was therefore the "Commanding General" listed since he was in fact in "command" of the division.

Public Affiars (https://www.publicaffairs.af.mil/) is the public 'face' of the Air Force and the official channel for interaction between the service, the public and the press. So the General in charge of Public Affairs wrote to the General in charge of Air Material Command for a statement and stance on these "UFO" sightings for disemniation to the public and press. Brigader General Nathan Twining head of the DIVISON that was Air Material Command was, within eight days of that memo assigned to the Alaska Air Command as its commander. A step down and to a place that at the time was NOT seen as the best of assignments. (https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Biographies/Display/Article/105367/general-nathan-f-twining/)

A threat to national security is about as serious as it gets. In August 1947, the Russians displayed the Tu-4, a reverse engineered B-29. That would be followed by the Tu-16 in 1954. No, there is no "new" Air Force here. National defense means you get the money you need.
:::SIgh::: No, in fact the US military would continue to face further and more major budget cuts when Truman was elected again in 1948. Truman had always prioritized domestic spending over anything else and further, while he 'favored' the "Big Stick" of Atomic Weapons and by default the Air Force since they were the only service that could deliver the weapons he still paid all military budget items LAST with whatever Federal funds were availalble. (The US could not attack Russia from the Continential US so the reverse was just as true) This policy would not shift until AFTER the Korean War had started. See attached graph.

The "new" Air Force would contract with the University of Colorado about 20 years later, and give the US public many of the the same, and in this case, also some of the least credible answers to the UFO problem in 1968. By January 1969, UFOs officially were no longer an Air Force concern. Decades later, nothing has changed.
Yes they did and because many of the reports were second and beyond hand exchanges many of the conclusions boiled down to unexplained, unknown, or indeterminant. Others were constrained by ongoing secrecy yes, (the Mantell Incident for example was likely the pilot chasing a high altitude balloon from Project Mogul which at the time was top secret). By 1969 the Air Force effort was useless due to interference and tampering by various "Civilian" UFO research and reporting groups who consistantly failed to follow proper procedure for witness statements and evidence/reporting cross-verification. Why keep something going when you can't get good data and are not even among the top three "organizations" someone thinks to contact?

It was litterally to the point where the witness' and reporters outside the military were activily hostile and uncooperative with Air Force investigators. Especially if the investigators didn't act like they fully accepted whatever the witness said and asked questions outside of the witness exeperiance.

Randy
 

Attachments

RanulfC

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Mar 6, 2009
Messages
670
Reaction score
94
The incidents in question involved the USN not the USAF.
What are you trying to say? That the US military is not a fully integrated and hemogneous organiztion that treats everyone and all things the same? That Squids, Jarheads, Wingnuts/ChairForce and GroPo's are not all the same in training, mindset and outlook? ;)

Randy
 

RanulfC

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Mar 6, 2009
Messages
670
Reaction score
94
The behavior of the objects has been purposely conveyed the wrong way by the US Air Force. They were in the driver's seat. They could say two, or more, contradictory things at the same time. The UFOs are nothing. The UFOs are something but we don't know what. The Americans and British were overflying Eastern European and Soviet airspace. They were shot down. They crashed. After the start of NEPA in 1946, the Russians had a need to know.
So you're discounting what those present have said and even the official description of the incident indicate some rather odd behaviour for a controlled artificial object.
What does the National Environmental Policy Act, (NEPA) have to do with the disscussion?

Randy
 

edwest

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2007
Messages
584
Reaction score
53
Sure. And they probably do have. I have to think the gov would be WAY more concerned if they actually thought they were LGM buzzing around in flying saucers. Still. . .if the pilots are being honest, it's strange. These aren't birds, "clouds of bugs", or weather balloons.
I'd say the pilots, (and the other witness' that have come forward) are being honest with stating what they think they saw. And it wasn't anything they were familar with or coud relate to a previous experiance. The thing is the behavior of the objects itself is a bit bizzare to say the least. I doubt they would be birds or weather balloons but I'm also not convinced they are not something natural given the behavior.

RAndy

The behavior of the objects has been purposely conveyed the wrong way by the US Air Force.
The incidents in question involved the USN not the USAF.

And the difference is no difference.
 

edwest

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2007
Messages
584
Reaction score
53
The behavior of the objects has been purposely conveyed the wrong way by the US Air Force. They were in the driver's seat. They could say two, or more, contradictory things at the same time. The UFOs are nothing. The UFOs are something but we don't know what. The Americans and British were overflying Eastern European and Soviet airspace. They were shot down. They crashed. After the start of NEPA in 1946, the Russians had a need to know.
So you're discounting what those present have said and even the official description of the incident indicate some rather odd behaviour for a controlled artificial object.
What does the National Environmental Policy Act, (NEPA) have to do with the disscussion?

Randy
And the difference between then and now is no difference.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,074
Reaction score
347
Sure. And they probably do have. I have to think the gov would be WAY more concerned if they actually thought they were LGM buzzing around in flying saucers. Still. . .if the pilots are being honest, it's strange. These aren't birds, "clouds of bugs", or weather balloons.
I'd say the pilots, (and the other witness' that have come forward) are being honest with stating what they think they saw. And it wasn't anything they were familar with or coud relate to a previous experiance. The thing is the behavior of the objects itself is a bit bizzare to say the least. I doubt they would be birds or weather balloons but I'm also not convinced they are not something natural given the behavior.

RAndy

The behavior of the objects has been purposely conveyed the wrong way by the US Air Force.
The incidents in question involved the USN not the USAF.

And the difference is no difference.
Oh, okay. :rolleyes: Need some more tinfoil?
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,074
Reaction score
347
The incidents in question involved the USN not the USAF.
What are you trying to say? That the US military is not a fully integrated and hemogneous organiztion that treats everyone and all things the same? That Squids, Jarheads, Wingnuts/ChairForce and GroPo's are not all the same in training, mindset and outlook? ;)

Randy
I'm not "trying" to say anything. I AM saying the incidents talked about on the podcast were USN.
 

edwest

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2007
Messages
584
Reaction score
53
What I "think" happened here? It's obvious.
Not as often as you might think :)

The Commanding General of the Army Air Force made a request to Air Materiel Command, Wright Field, Dayton Ohio and this is the answer he got after their intelligence and engineering people weighed in.
Example right here. The requestor, Brigader General Francis G. Schulgen was in fact assigned to (US Air Force, (having become a seperate service 5 days earlier they hadn't had time yet to change letter head or organizational charts and it would be the mid-50s before the public mentally accepted the service as a seperate entity) the Public Affairs Division. "Assigned" because he was already on track to retire about 8 months later (http://www.generals.dk/general/Schulgen/George_Francis/USA.html) and he was therefore the "Commanding General" listed since he was in fact in "command" of the division.

Public Affiars (https://www.publicaffairs.af.mil/) is the public 'face' of the Air Force and the official channel for interaction between the service, the public and the press. So the General in charge of Public Affairs wrote to the General in charge of Air Material Command for a statement and stance on these "UFO" sightings for disemniation to the public and press. Brigader General Nathan Twining head of the DIVISON that was Air Material Command was, within eight days of that memo assigned to the Alaska Air Command as its commander. A step down and to a place that at the time was NOT seen as the best of assignments. (https://www.af.mil/About-Us/Biographies/Display/Article/105367/general-nathan-f-twining/)

A threat to national security is about as serious as it gets. In August 1947, the Russians displayed the Tu-4, a reverse engineered B-29. That would be followed by the Tu-16 in 1954. No, there is no "new" Air Force here. National defense means you get the money you need.
:::SIgh::: No, in fact the US military would continue to face further and more major budget cuts when Truman was elected again in 1948. Truman had always prioritized domestic spending over anything else and further, while he 'favored' the "Big Stick" of Atomic Weapons and by default the Air Force since they were the only service that could deliver the weapons he still paid all military budget items LAST with whatever Federal funds were availalble. (The US could not attack Russia from the Continential US so the reverse was just as true) This policy would not shift until AFTER the Korean War had started. See attached graph.

The "new" Air Force would contract with the University of Colorado about 20 years later, and give the US public many of the the same, and in this case, also some of the least credible answers to the UFO problem in 1968. By January 1969, UFOs officially were no longer an Air Force concern. Decades later, nothing has changed.
Yes they did and because many of the reports were second and beyond hand exchanges many of the conclusions boiled down to unexplained, unknown, or indeterminant. Others were constrained by ongoing secrecy yes, (the Mantell Incident for example was likely the pilot chasing a high altitude balloon from Project Mogul which at the time was top secret). By 1969 the Air Force effort was useless due to interference and tampering by various "Civilian" UFO research and reporting groups who consistantly failed to follow proper procedure for witness statements and evidence/reporting cross-verification. Why keep something going when you can't get good data and are not even among the top three "organizations" someone thinks to contact?

It was litterally to the point where the witness' and reporters outside the military were activily hostile and uncooperative with Air Force investigators. Especially if the investigators didn't act like they fully accepted whatever the witness said and asked questions outside of the witness exeperiance.

Randy


Some good information there, thank you. The rest was not helpful at all. The early consensus was that these were Russian aircraft. They were being used for reconnaissance because in the no money world of May 1946, the Nuclear Energy for the Propulsion of Aircraft (NEPA) program started, and funding appeared in 1947.

The Air Force wanted a confused public out there. People formed small investigative groups because they were not getting good, to them, reasonable answers from the Air Force. I'm not talking about lights in the sky or vague shapes or some meteor. I'm referring to solid metallic objects of circular shape. If I saw that and the Air Force came back with "you only saw what you think you saw, or your brain made it up as it went along," I would be hostile as well. And by that I mean hostile to people not examining it at the level AMC examined it. It makes no sense to tell me some guy was about to be shipped of to Alaska - deal with the issue and forget about trivia.

What was worse were incidents inside the military itself. The US was using radar picket ships in the Atlantic and Pacific while trying to get continental radars up. Airborne reconnaissance aircraft were becoming more numerous over the US. What were they looking for? Nothing? Pilots reporting close visual contact with clear visibility were constrained by Espionage laws in place. They reported and were told not to talk about it.
 

RanulfC

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Mar 6, 2009
Messages
670
Reaction score
94
I'm not "trying" to say anything. I AM saying the incidents talked about on the podcast were USN.
And I was making a joke as you well know ;)

And the difference is no difference.
Actually that's pretty telling since the Air Force likely would have NEVER released anything because they don't have to. The Navy on the other hand did to address the discussion. In the second NEPA was things like the Environmental Protection Agency and environmental laws and wasn't enacted till 1970 so what does that have to do with 1947?

Some good information there, thank you.
Your welcome

The rest was not helpful at all. The early consensus was that these were Russian aircraft. They were being used for reconnaissance because in the no money world of May 1946, the Nuclear Energy for the Propulsion of Aircraft (NEPA) program started, and funding appeared in 1947.
Amazingly none of those funds went to any military service because at the time, (and this is where history helps) ALL Atomic and Nuclear work was done by the Atomic Energy Commission incuding all work on nuclear weapons design and construction. The 'study' goals of NEPA amounted to a few thousand dollars since it didn't have priority over warhead development, (recall it was the Air Force AND Atomic Weapons that got the funding) and it remained that way till NEPA transitioned to ANP (Aircraft Nuclear Power)

The Air Force wanted a confused public out there.
Quite the opposite effect from also then organizing and putting into place a huge 'air' observer corps no?

People formed small investigative groups because they were not getting good, to them, reasonable answers from the Air Force. I'm not talking about lights in the sky or vague shapes or some meteor. I'm referring to solid metallic objects of circular shape. If I saw that and the Air Force came back with "you only saw what you think you saw, or your brain made it up as it went along," I would be hostile as well. And by that I mean hostile to people not examining it at the level AMC examined it. It makes no sense to tell me some guy was about to be shipped of to Alaska - deal with the issue and forget about trivia.
Close. What happened is the Air Force said "could you have seen" and then went on to question your eyesight, your mental factilties and your 'honor' about what you had seen you get mad and don't talk the them anymore. Then again, (strangly enough) using the interogation techninques that were used in the war on both allied and enemy personnel, (your gathering intelligence from unreliable and often stressed humans, you question EVERYTHING as a matter of course) didn't work well with civilians duiring peace-time. Who'd a thunk?

So people who were convinced that UFOs were "solid metallic objects of circular shape" when the Air Force did not immediatly and publicly acknowledge these "facts" went out and found like minded individuals who DID believe those same "facts" and began to "investigate" sightings by believing everthing someone told them. UFO "research" hasn't significantly changed since and the problem is there IS 'something' out there.

What was worse were incidents inside the military itself. The US was using radar picket ships in the Atlantic and Pacific while trying to get continental radars up. Airborne reconnaissance aircraft were becoming more numerous over the US. What were they looking for? Nothing? Pilots reporting close visual contact with clear visibility were constrained by Espionage laws in place. They reported and were told not to talk about it.
Since the military had only vague notions of what they were looking for, and the equipment was so primitive every sighting was suspecious of course, but to paraphrase Scotty the more complex you make it the easier it is to break it. Radar pickets carried larger radars which let them see further than the smaller warship mounted sets. See futher and have more warning of a threat and carries have always been threatened by enemy air assests. (And those pickets were usually with the fleet not on coastal patrol that didn't get going till after the Korean war in ernest when the military budget went up)

And those 'espionage' laws weren't what prevented the pilots from talking it was being asked by authority in a time when authority was highly trusted NOT to talk about something until the authority finished investigating the report. Standard procedure but for all that a good number would still turn around and tell anyone who'd listen what they saw and so why should authority continue to stay in contact with them? So they never get an 'answer' and form their own.

Randy
 

edwest

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2007
Messages
584
Reaction score
53
A very strange reply. What happened to the records of the Ground Observer Corps? How many of the Ground Observer Corps wrote even "My Sightings as a Member of the Ground Observer Corps"? Answer. None. Only a vague idea of what they were looking for? False.


19 Aug 46 - (S) Outgoing War Dept classified msg "To: CG PACUSA Tokyo Japan Reurad A 97381 from GOMGENAIR. Based on reports which are to date insufficient and inconclusive, the following estimates are submitted: A. They appear to be guided missiles with turbo jet or ram jet engines and similar to an enlarged V-1. If the missiles achieve supersonic speed, the wings would have to be smaller and shorter than those on the V-1, probably resembling an A-9 missile. B. Peenemünde is the most likely source, with the Aland Islands, Porkkala Area of Finland, and Dago Islands, Esthonia [sic], as possible launching sites or observation stations. In general, the launchings are reportedly from the North German coast aimed Northward along the Baltic. C. A 700 mile radius has been reported. Performance definitely in excess of 100 miles. D. Accuracy is not known, but long range control of direction and propulsion, long range homing on cities, and probable short range homing have been reported. E. Natural gas has been reportedly used as fuel, although multiple step rocket propulsion also may be in use. Demolition by explosion or burning charge seems to be indicated. V-3 and V-4 have been reported in these tests, although the definite identity of V-3 and V-4 not known. End. ORIGINATOR: AAF / DISTRIBUTION: ID, P&O, R&D"

22 Aug 46 - Reuters reports on Soviet development of "new and very powerful rocket -- the German V-4" and that "the Russians were continuing German experiments"

22 Aug 46 - NYTimes, p 2: "Russia Said To Make V-Weapons In Zone" - "Berlin, Aug 21 (Reuter) - Russian and German technicians are manufacturing new V weapons in a number of former German arms plants that are working at the full level of their present capacity, well documented and extremely reliable information reaching Berlin from the Soviet occupation zone said today. Evidence has been provided that the Russians are engaged in the production of heavy armaments, special jet aircraft, rocket fuels for V weapons and U-boat and torpedo components in at least ten special factories in several parts of Russian-occupied Germany. Although the Russians do not at present permit Allied investigation of activity inside the closed guarded arms factories in the Russian occupied areas it has been learned that production of components of advanced V weapons is going ahead in such factories as Siemens and Telefunken in Berlin, Nieder-Sachsenwerke at Wolfsleben and the Klein-Bodungen factory, all of which are subsidiaries of the big Bleich-Roeder [sic] concern. In the Magdeburg plant of the Krupps combine the Russians are producing heavy armament equipment that is being shipped into Soviet Russia, it was stated. Special aircraft fuels for jet engines are being produced in the giant Leuna oil plant near Merseburg in Saxony, but production is believed to be on a comparatively small scale, it was added."
 

Nigelhg

I really should change my personal text
Joined
Mar 25, 2012
Messages
21
Reaction score
0
Lost my interest when he started quoting Bob Lazar.
Yeah, funny thing with Lazar is that he keep saying he doesn't like attention and talking , but yet a film as been made of his story and he talks on podcasts... Ect...
So i suppose he is not a bad guy, but he just has a small buziness to run selling his own story stuffs, and i suppose that is how he makes a living.
Surprised J.Rogan didn't noticed this.
On the one hand it's easy to automatically dismiss what he says, because it's so far out there, but on the other what if he's telling the truth? Do we just automatically throw the BS flag because he's basically a caveman trying to explain an F-35B to the rest of his cavemen buddies? But if he's telling the truth how is it he's never faced any legal action from his former employer (AFAIK)?

The Commander sounds credible but then he does laugh about pulling pranks on people to make them think they'd seen a UFO. (Then again that doesn't seem too out of the ordinary. :p) I did find the APG-73/79 detail interesting. But the obvious question is, "did they just not mess with the radar in the latter incident"?
A different perspective on this.

That reads like a, "Moon Landing was faked" site.
Did you even read the article?

It's not a moon landing was faked site it's actually an anti conspiracy site.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,074
Reaction score
347
Lost my interest when he started quoting Bob Lazar.
Yeah, funny thing with Lazar is that he keep saying he doesn't like attention and talking , but yet a film as been made of his story and he talks on podcasts... Ect...
So i suppose he is not a bad guy, but he just has a small buziness to run selling his own story stuffs, and i suppose that is how he makes a living.
Surprised J.Rogan didn't noticed this.
On the one hand it's easy to automatically dismiss what he says, because it's so far out there, but on the other what if he's telling the truth? Do we just automatically throw the BS flag because he's basically a caveman trying to explain an F-35B to the rest of his cavemen buddies? But if he's telling the truth how is it he's never faced any legal action from his former employer (AFAIK)?

The Commander sounds credible but then he does laugh about pulling pranks on people to make them think they'd seen a UFO. (Then again that doesn't seem too out of the ordinary. :p) I did find the APG-73/79 detail interesting. But the obvious question is, "did they just not mess with the radar in the latter incident"?
A different perspective on this.

That reads like a, "Moon Landing was faked" site.
Did you even read the article?

It's not a moon landing was faked site it's actually an anti conspiracy site.
I did read the article. How else would I have come to a conclusion?
 

galgot

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2006
Messages
519
Reaction score
211
Website
galgot.com
I did read the article. How else would I have come to a conclusion?
But… How can you compare the veracity of the Moon landing to the veracity the Tictac story ?
Questioning the veracity of the Moon landing is clearly stupid i agree, it’s a known Historical fact.
But questioning the Tictac story is normal given no one know exactly what it was…
I don’t see the logic here.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,074
Reaction score
347
I did read the article. How else would I have come to a conclusion?
But… How can you compare the veracity of the Moon landing to the veracity the Tictac story ?
Questioning the veracity of the Moon landing is clearly stupid i agree, it’s a known Historical fact.
But questioning the Tictac story is normal given no one know exactly what it was…
I don’t see the logic here.

I did not do that. I'm saying that when I read that site it was like reading one of those, "moon landing was faked" sites. Maybe it was their style or the plethora of instances of stating speculation as fact. I would not have been surprised at all to see, "9/11 was an inside job" on there.
 

sferrin

CLEARANCE: Above Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2011
Messages
12,074
Reaction score
347
Or you could just not read it. No need to punish everybody just to make you happy.
 

RanulfC

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Mar 6, 2009
Messages
670
Reaction score
94
I did not do that. I'm saying that when I read that site it was like reading one of those, "moon landing was faked" sites. Maybe it was their style or the plethora of instances of stating speculation as fact. I would not have been surprised at all to see, "9/11 was an inside job" on there.
Trolling right? Because the article and site are exactly the opposite of what you're saying you 'read' there. They actually quote the sources used in the speculation and all whereas conspiricy sites pride themselves on not doing so as "proof" they are right.

Randy
 

RanulfC

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Mar 6, 2009
Messages
670
Reaction score
94
A very strange reply. What happened to the records of the Ground Observer Corps? How many of the Ground Observer Corps wrote even "My Sightings as a Member of the Ground Observer Corps"? Answer. None. Only a vague idea of what they were looking for? False.
Speaking of a strange reply....

Is but one state resource and the national archive records are naturally deeper. None of it's classified.

Written accounts?

And they were briefed on general characteristics of known aircraft and sent out to look the sky. There were millions of reports and a lot less resources to actually do anything with the information till after 1950 by which time radar was replacing them.


19 Aug 46 - (S) Outgoing War Dept classified msg "To: CG PACUSA Tokyo Japan Reurad A 97381 from GOMGENAIR. Based on reports which are to date insufficient and inconclusive, the following estimates are submitted: A. They appear to be guided missiles with turbo jet or ram jet engines and similar to an enlarged V-1. If the missiles achieve supersonic speed, the wings would have to be smaller and shorter than those on the V-1, probably resembling an A-9 missile. B. Peenemünde is the most likely source, with the Aland Islands, Porkkala Area of Finland, and Dago Islands, Esthonia [sic], as possible launching sites or observation stations. In general, the launchings are reportedly from the North German coast aimed Northward along the Baltic. C. A 700 mile radius has been reported. Performance definitely in excess of 100 miles. D. Accuracy is not known, but long range control of direction and propulsion, long range homing on cities, and probable short range homing have been reported. E. Natural gas has been reportedly used as fuel, although multiple step rocket propulsion also may be in use. Demolition by explosion or burning charge seems to be indicated. V-3 and V-4 have been reported in these tests, although the definite identity of V-3 and V-4 not known. End. ORIGINATOR: AAF / DISTRIBUTION: ID, P&O, R&D"

22 Aug 46 - Reuters reports on Soviet development of "new and very powerful rocket -- the German V-4" and that "the Russians were continuing German experiments"

22 Aug 46 - NYTimes, p 2: "Russia Said To Make V-Weapons In Zone" - "Berlin, Aug 21 (Reuter) - Russian and German technicians are manufacturing new V weapons in a number of former German arms plants that are working at the full level of their present capacity, well documented and extremely reliable information reaching Berlin from the Soviet occupation zone said today. Evidence has been provided that the Russians are engaged in the production of heavy armaments, special jet aircraft, rocket fuels for V weapons and U-boat and torpedo components in at least ten special factories in several parts of Russian-occupied Germany. Although the Russians do not at present permit Allied investigation of activity inside the closed guarded arms factories in the Russian occupied areas it has been learned that production of components of advanced V weapons is going ahead in such factories as Siemens and Telefunken in Berlin, Nieder-Sachsenwerke at Wolfsleben and the Klein-Bodungen factory, all of which are subsidiaries of the big Bleich-Roeder [sic] concern. In the Magdeburg plant of the Krupps combine the Russians are producing heavy armament equipment that is being shipped into Soviet Russia, it was stated. Special aircraft fuels for jet engines are being produced in the giant Leuna oil plant near Merseburg in Saxony, but production is believed to be on a comparatively small scale, it was added."
It was a plausible idea at the time but keep in mind that no one every found much in the way of remains or wreckage unlike the actual German test articles which made the idea questionable. Then it became clear from reports inside the zone that the test ranges were in fact NOT being used and they'd been stripped and sent back to Russia proper within months of the end of the War. Something that should be rather 'telling' is that a the time Western intelligince was well aware that neither the V3 or V4 were rocket or missile weapons in any case o the 'designation' useage in the message should indicate a low level source that in fact did NOT known better. This correlated with most of the reporting of the 'ghost rockets' sightings.

Something to keep in mind is that during that period the Allies were desperatly trying to keep America insterested in Europe affairs as it was feared we'd slip back into isolationism despite our wartime stance. Given the rather open nature of Truman's policy, down to the first use of Atomic Weapons, (which would have to be staged in Europe and likely dropped on Europe) and deep and rapid demobilization and down-sizing of the US military it was I'd say rightly feared that without a continious 'threat' the US took seriously that we might simply pack up and go home as soon as possible and ignore Europes problems.

Randy
 

Flyaway

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 21, 2015
Messages
2,343
Reaction score
326
This sounds like more nonsense from this fellow and his patents. Heck knows why the navy are attaching their name to them. When you look at the article you’ll see why I have placed it in this thread.

 

edwest

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2007
Messages
584
Reaction score
53
The motivation is simple. From the site posted: "While attempting to dig up as much information as possible about the inventor and these patents, I came across some supplemental documents in the USPTO’s databases that seem to imply that Navy leadership knows that these technologies are actually feasible – or that they want us or someone else to think that they are."

The Navy has full control over what gets released. I don't believe in leaks.
 

Flyaway

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Jan 21, 2015
Messages
2,343
Reaction score
326
The motivation is simple. From the site posted: "While attempting to dig up as much information as possible about the inventor and these patents, I came across some supplemental documents in the USPTO’s databases that seem to imply that Navy leadership knows that these technologies are actually feasible – or that they want us or someone else to think that they are."

The Navy has full control over what gets released. I don't believe in leaks.
But I can’t see many countries falling for such an obvious ruse.
 

edwest

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2007
Messages
584
Reaction score
53
It goes back to Sun Tzu. The idea is to reduce the confidence level of potential enemies. We have this technology or we do not. I think 50/50 is not good enough for most defense planners.
 

RanulfC

CLEARANCE: Top Secret
Joined
Mar 6, 2009
Messages
670
Reaction score
94
I just skimmed the article but I'll point out that the Navy like any other government agency has an arrangment with people who work for it to allow them to publish and apply for patents on things they work on "officially". The majority of time this isn't an issue but I suspect this is one of those 'other' times since we should all be aware that it is quite possible to get a patent for something the doesn't work or isn't really feasible. Surprising I know.

See getting a patent application number is one way scammers and con artists operate since you get those just by applying for a patent and as long as you avoid certain "keywords" the system has to process it and assign an appliction number whether it's eventually rejected or granted. By the same token you can get a patent granted for something that has no chance of (currently) working but can, in theory, work or be made workable at a later date.
(I can't post an example because they were finally taken down when the patent's ran out a few years ago but one I loved was the "Plasma powered, hovering anti-missile and assault tower system" patent. An honest to god fusion powered, plasma firing, fusion thruster hovering combat tower design with beutiful detail drawings of plasmal conduits and internal and external structure which exactly a one paragraph 'description' of how it would work. The description pretty much said should anyone every develop working fusion that prouduces plasma THIS is my concept for what to do with it" and that was apperantly patentable....)

The UFO and fusion reactor patents at first glance seem plausible if any of the underlying assumptions work, whether those assumptions are valid or not aren't really applicable IF rest of the patent hold together in a coherent manner. As to the Navy supporting it because they think "China is working on it" I'd say that's probably a boiler plate response. Keep in mind that it doesn't really matter IF this works at this point and time in that if it DOES work then everything the Navy (and the rest of the military and world) currently has is obsolete immditaly.

More likely is that some of mentioned tech does actually have possible uses and they are burying it in technobabble.

For example:
"if you can a) create a room temperature superconductor capable of storing an incredibly high amount of energy and b) get the energy field created by that superconductor moving at incredibly high speeds around or within the craft, you can create a polarized energy vacuum around it which allows it to basically ignore the energy of the air or water around it, thereby removing its own inertia and mass from the equation."

Obviously the room-temperature superconductor capable of storing a large amount of energy is a workable concept. A "moving energy field" is borderline but potentially plausible. The phrase "polarized energy vacuum" is total nonsense as is it having the "effect" of ignoring physics, inertia and mass and that's been proven to not work. So I'm pretty sure a careful examination of the whole patent(s) will reveal a few gems obscured by the rest but in general it's a smoke screen not an attempt to 'reveal' anything. In general even with an official Navy letter supporting this any scientist or intelligece agency would have quickly rejected and tossed this in the trash becauseits so silly and obviously crap. Now they're going to go back and take a longer look at this and the others BECAUSE of the attention. Not to see if we've discovered anti-gravity and/or "energy vacuum" but because the Navy was obviously trying to hide something in these and what might that be?

In fact I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest you won't see anymore patents out of this guy because thanks to the media coverage he been 'tagged' for inetlligence purposes. Which technically means this worked if it was aimed at being disinformation because someone is going to waste time trying to make sense of it and find something in it. But if its got 'real' tech in it this will be too much attention and if it's disinformation then the over-scrutiny by the media and other sources is (has actually) already made it ineffective.

Randy
 
Top