Hitlers Flying Saucers!!

[PhantomWolf]

I was watching mythbusters last night...what a joke!

While Mythbusters is designed to be entertainment, what was the joke? They did a reasonably successful experiment to determine is the skin of the Hindenburg acted as a thermite reaction and was responsible for fast burning of the airship. Regardless of the entertainment quality and Adam's enjoyment of making things blow up, what did you find wrong with their techniques or results?

[Jason]

Mythbusters rocks. No it's not exactly science - when they can't do something they're really only proving that the Mythbusters can't do something, not that it's not possible, but it is highly entertaining.

[altair4]

mythbusters is a fun program and I love watching,and they DO come to pretty good conclusions...I still recommend it!but not to be taken toooooo......literally

but yes it's neat!

[JayUtah]

like I say I still keep open mind.

So do we. However, nothing about open-mindedness prevents us from testing ideas.

Your authors have the luxury of making claims without suffering any consequences if they are wrong. What if they had to accept legal liability for the correctness of their conclusions? What if their decisions caused other people to become liable?

That's the main difference between my form of investigation and your authors'. I am responsible for the outcome of my conclusions in ways that have real effects. And that's why I have fairly little patience for people who just play at investigation or science while presuming to lecture others on how to study things and be "open-minded."

I certainly do not agree with co-opting the term "open-minded" to indicate an arbitrary lowering of the standards of proof simply so that one's pet beliefs can squeak through.

How do you define a real engineer,scientist!

Someone who knows what he's talking about. In many places engineers must be licensed just like doctors, to certify to the public that they are fit to undertake the practice.

my favouite engineer/scientist is Leonardo Da Vinci

Mine too. While Leonardo practiced at a time when formal qualifications did not exist, he was nevertheless able to demonstrate his skill in the form of his writings and designs. We can see from his notes that he knew what he was talking about.

Your authors cannot rise to that level of understanding. They simply wave their hands at rumors and vague speculation, never venturing anything testable that might betray their ignorance.

qualified engineers build bridges,they also fall down

Not everything Leonardo designed worked either. If you want to know how engineers feel about this, read Henry Petroski's Pushing the Limits. It's a short book. Unlike your authors, Petroski is well qualified in the field of engineering and widely sought after for his opinion.

...I said how did you fly it back into Sydney airport (he said like a cessna)

Then upon what basis do you presume that the engineers of the 747 were derelict or ignorant? They engineered an aircraft that can withstand a serious failure to a major system, yet remain flyable. I'm quite familiar with the principles of airliner design and construction, and it is a very high art practiced only by a few who rise to that level of skill and trust. You seem to have very little concept of what reliable engineering is, or what a reliable test of correctness entails.

he was also a navy pilot....experience

Agreed. Experience teaches wonderful things that cannot be learned any other way. I'm not anti-experience. I'm not pro-qualifications to the exclusion of experience. You simply need to know what you're doing, one way or another. A certificate or credential establishes that one has demonstrated a minimum level of expertise in some field. In place of that can be demonstrated commensurate experience.

But what cannot be done is simply to handwave about vague concepts, or demand the respect due an expert without the willingness to display expertise. Your authors cower behind vague claims and "just proposing this" scenarios, never willing to show whether they have anything.

anything is possible

But as I explained: that doesn't mean everything occurs. If you argue that some specific thing occurred, pointing out that it was possible for it to occur is insufficient. As you say, everything is possible; so that's not a proof of anything.

You throw the door wide open to allow for your pet beliefs to stroll in, but you omit that by doing so you're allowing any number of incorrect beliefs in. Lowering the standards of evidence does not make a belief any more credible.

I don't have an engineering degree but I know how an aircraft produces lift.

Many people do. That elementary knowledge doesn't mean they have enough of the rest of the knowledge required to build an aircraft. I know how the human heart works. That doesn't mean I'm a cardiac surgeon.

Riichard Pearse could not afford a proper education and he ended with having patents.. I consider him a real engineer

Richard Pearse educated himself by other means. There are many people even today with similar drive and determination. They can acquire skill and understanding in many ways, often to an impressive extent. But they must demonstrate it. A diploma or degree is a certification of such a demonstration. An actual flying machine is also a demonstration.

Your authors decline any such demonstration. Let them qualify themselves as physicists recognized by other practicing physicists, and examine the Nazi saucer claims by those means. Or let them build one themselves according to the alleged Nazi methods and demonstrate the principles to skeptical peers. Either way, I'm satisfied. But I won't be satisfied by the ignorant repetition of vague rumors just to fill the pages of a book. That's just a money-making scam.

so its all a matter of perspective really...

No, it's a matter of being properly informed. People can educate themselves, or they can pay others to educate them. But unlike your authors, they cannot simply pretend to be educated or insinuate that proper understanding is not required.

Stevens and Cook both admit they aren't scientists or engineers. What possible useful "perspective" can they offer? They're arguing about things that either happened or they didn't. That's not changed by "perspective." They're discussing principles of the physical world that are either true or false. That's also not a matter of "perspective."

Hold a heavy hammer over your hand and drop it. Is the gravity that causes the hammer to smash your hand a simple matter of "perspective?" Will the hammer alter its behavior to suit your opinion? Will your open-mindedness prevent your bones from breaking? Will there inexplicably be no pain because "anything can happen?"

...to me real engineers are POSITIVE,when real (qualified engineers) said their ideas would not succeed

No engineer, amateur or professional, can succeed by ignoring the behavior of the universe.

I was watching mythbusters last night...what a joke!

You're judging all of science by what the Mythbusters do? Now that is a joke.

It's pretty clear at this point that you're predisposed against mainstream science and knowledge, and that this bias is guiding your choice of topic, not any careful consideration of fact.

[JayUtah]

I still recommend it!but not to be taken toooooo......literally

I recommend it too, and it has been my privilege to contribute to the program. However it is not meant as a substitute for real science. The program is successful not because it is always scrupulously scientifically valid, but because it is put together like a good fiction program, with compelling story lines and a very engaging cast of characters.

I know firsthand the lengths to which they have gone to control for as much as is practical. But it's not equivalent to the rigor practiced in real science.

[altair4]

Jay Utah!!

I really do enjoy your company,but your "high standards" don't mean anything really...as you get older life becomes < & < black and white

I have looked at the book (HFS)& you havent,I have a video of this hitlers flying saucers thing & researchers confirm the existence of something exotic

Qualifications...hmmm. The world is full of incompetent people very well qualified!!

its ATTITUDE not aptitude that leads to altitude( that why I belong I belong to kiwiingenuity,your "scientific method,"your so called logic..your "high standards" is no comparison compared to what's been achieved..Your right the universe works to laws with mathematical precision

a friend of mine had a precognitive dream : he dreamt of being on his motorbike in Sydney and he was hit by a truck...3 months later it actually happened!!( was ok) and what would would your idol James Randi say..prove it!! in a laboratory...and if it doesn't happen your lying or deluded or whatever

A business manager can have all the qualifications in the world....but whats like when the sh*t hits the fan!!Theory is black and white,experience is grey it's the colour of life

your reasoning does not impress me,your "good" at argueing

come to New Zealand,kiwis are friendly such as myself and I will get you a beer!

oh yes,mythbusters I can't remember exactly something splitting arrows...


nothing unusual for Zen masters..they can do it blind folded
and with Kyudo you aim at "yourself" rather than the target

anywayyourargumentisfunbutfromexperienceIknowyourmininformedcometoNewZealandandIwillbuyyouabeer!DoIneedaPH.Dtoprovethatyourgoodinmybooks?
anywaykeepupwithyourpseudo"scientificmethod"

andIwilltrytoavoidwritinglikethis!butitisfundon'tyouthink?

well done on your contribution to mythbusters,its a good prog!

anyway I am glad you like aircraft(so do I ) one thing that impress's me is the magnitude of US Defence,you guys have everything have you looked into UCAV and ABL?this is an interesting feld( I find) what do you think about UCAV and the AirbourneLaser(its still experimental).

also I don't need an engineering degree to build an aircraft I could build a homebuilt aircraft...I would say that Richard Pearse built the first "microlight" to get off the ground(still it is subjective)
but yes I agree with you that the Wright Brothers achieved controlled flight...but then againwho know( I think it could have been the Egyptians?Can your scientific method come to any factual conclusion as to who was the first to achieve mechanised flight?...I don't think so and it never will,it could have been a lost tribe in the South Pacific?

have a nice day!!PEACE...come to New Zealand,do you like outdoor activites?PEACE!

[Jason]

altair4 said:

its ATTITUDE not aptitude that leads to altitude( that why I belong I belong to kiwiingenuity,your "scientific method,"your so called logic..your "high standards" is no comparison compared to what's been achieved..Your right the universe works to laws with mathematical precision

"Don't be too proud of this technological terror you've constructed. The ability to destroy a planet is insignificant, next to the power of the Force."

[altair4]

May the" Force" be with you young Skywalker!!

[RAF]

altair4 said:

I have looked at the book (HFS)& you havent...

Unless your book can convincingly explain why established aerodynamical theory is all wrong, then it makes no difference...your belief that the book is "correct" changes nothing.

Why is it so hard for you to understand that the "saucer shape" is simply not a viable alternative to the traditional aircraft wing?

[JayUtah]

I really do enjoy your company,but your "high standards" don't mean anything really...

Yes, they do. The universe will either conform to your prediction, or it won't. If it doesn't, your prediction is wrong -- end of story. And if your prediction must be right or else people die (or lose vast sums of money), then you should take pains to ensure your prediction is either based on the best possible knowledge, or isn't made at all.

You're presuming to lecture me on appropriate means of drawing conclusions. Unfortunately I'm not interested in methods used by people who generally aren't held accountable for their results. If the correctness of the result doesn't matter, then any method can be used whether it works or not.

I have looked at the book (HFS)& you havent...

Irrelevant. I am familiar with its authors and their admitted lack of understanding. I simply don't bother reading books written by people who admit they probably don't know what they're talking about. If you want to waste your time with such nonsense, that's your business. But don't hold it up as an example of proper reasoning.

As I said, let your authors demonstrate an appropriate understanding of the subject matter by some means, then they will attract my attention. There are innumerable ignorant people I could listen to if I chose to; those two don't stand out.

Qualifications...hmmm. The world is full of incompetent people very well qualified!!

Such as?

Your right the universe works to laws with mathematical precision

Not necessarily "mathematical precision." The universe simply exhibits behavior that doesn't change depending on what we think of it. We can merely discover its behavior, not rewrite it.

a friend of mine had a precognitive dream : he dreamt of being on his motorbike in Sydney and he was hit by a truck...3 months later it actually happened!!

If you can't prove by objectively testable means that one event causally determined the other, then it's not precognition; it's just a coincidence. You have simply jumped to the conclusion. Of course we are open to the possibility that it might be, but to go from that hypothesis to calling it "precognition" would require proof. Can you provide it? If not then we are safer saying it was a coincidence. We know coincidences happen. We don't know yet that future-telling actually happens.

your reasoning does not impress me,your "good" at argueing

I'm good at arguing because my reasoning is sound. That's what makes a good argument. My world requires people to take responsibility for the strength of their reasoning. Hence I have become extremely adept at detecting and explaining faulty lines of reasoning. I don't intend maliciously to destroy any pet belief you have. But if you want to see whether your beliefs stand up as rigorously as others that are more widely held, then you have to submit to that type of analysis and accept the outcome. The question then becomes whether you're devoted more to the truth or to your particular belief.

also I don't need an engineering degree to build an aircraft I could build a homebuilt aircraft...

But that's simply assembling an aircraft that someone else designed. One doesn't need to know the first thing about aeronautical design in order to do that. If your point is about expertise and knowledge, then you need to respect that distinction.

Pearse built his own aircraft, yes. He also designed it. And in designing it he came to a knowledge of the principles that govern such designs. Someone building a Ruttan design in his garage does not necessarily arrive at the same level of understanding as Pearse, the Wrights, or Ruttan. Or even Leonardo, for that matter.

Can your scientific method come to any factual conclusion as to who was the first to achieve mechanised flight?...I don't think so and it never will...

The scientific method is not well suited to that type of historical research and hence is not used for it. You seem to believe that the scientific method is intended for all questions; it is not. Rejecting it because it doesn't answer questions it isn't formulated to answer is a straw-man argument.

[JayUtah]

Why is it so hard for you to understand that the "saucer shape" is simply not a viable alternative to the traditional aircraft wing?

It should be noted that the books in question are more a discussion of alleged anti-gravity technology than the supposed aerodynamic merits or pitfalls of a saucer-shaped airfoil. The conspiracy theory is that the Nazis discovered a method of creating anti-gravity by means of electromagnetism.

However, whether the saucer shape is used to generate lift or not, the saucer shape moving through the air (i.e., propelled electrodynamically) will have an aerodynamic effect. There is little about the alleged anti-gravity technology that requires a saucer shape to the enclosing fuselage. It can be put essentially in any shape that envelopes the drive. But as the shape moves through the air, the interaction of the air and the shape will create forces that must be accommodated in the design. That's where the saucer shape becomes nothing but a liability. It's a terrible shape for such a vehicle, even if the shape isn't meant to create aerodynamic lift. The saucer is simply too inefficient and unstable.

So that's a huge nail in the Nazi saucer coffin. The combination of anti-gravity and saucer shape is just absurd from an educated standpoint. The authors don't have the expertise to understand that, and their readers generally don't either.

[altair4]

Jay Utah

I wasn't getting onto the subject of base 211 that sort of thing and Nazi bases.

don't think so...from your educated" pont of view unless you look at the whole picture then there is something left out.Read the book"ufos over NZ" that shows flying disc manouvering in our skies.Also I am not a christian but I do wonder about "spinning wheels" in Ezekiel from the bible.
Anti gravity is where things will end up...I will persist in Hitlers Flying Saucers,Nick Cooks book (Zero point..) UFOS over NZ

I am especially interested in the Kaikoura incident(if you know about it) in78,79 I was speaking to Steve Gibbs about it last month and sent him a book about it written by the author (pilot) who flew the aircraft(Steve Gibbs now retired) tracked the objects on HIS radar and I worked for cival aviation just after the incident..we were told not to say anything about it!we both know the scientist ARE wrong ,they claim squid boat reflection...when in fact the object is also on video over area 51!which I don't think they no about! Once again your scientific method doesn't hold water...you need more info,more information to come to a proper conclusion

and also checkout UCAV and Airbourne Laser.

come to NZ!

I am NOT against science and technology...its great!!

I have a problem with conventional scientific understanding and it's methodology.

life is a mystery

face it whatever perspective we BOTH don't have all the answers!

I will continue with Flying Saucers and antigravity!

also it came to me now that in the DVD that the technology was based on ESOTERIC PRINCIPLES(not your conventional physics)

[JayUtah]

I am NOT against science and technology...its great!!
I have a problem with conventional scientific understanding and it's methodology.

How do you think all those great things were done? What have the pseudoscientists done except to line their own pockets? Where are their great contributions to humankind?

You want to have your cake and eat it too.

Conventional scientific methodology didn't arise just because some guy said this is how it's going to be. It arose because it is proven to work over time. When the process doesn't work in one case or another, then it's fixed to make it work again. Science constantly introspects to detect error. Scientists are well motivated to check each others' work.

Pseudoscience on the other hand is based on not checking anyone's work. It's based on faith in the proponent.

face it whatever perspective we BOTH don't have all the answers!

The behavior of the universe is not a matter of perspective. One does not need to have all the answers to know that some answers are wrong. And I have many more answers than you or your authors. In fact most pseudoscientists aren't even interested in answers -- just in being seen as a briefly plausible alternative, long enough to get their money and their 15 minutes of fame.

also it came to me now that in the DVD that the technology was based on ESOTERIC PRINCIPLES(not your conventional physics)

There is no evidence any such "technology" existed. It is not based on "esoteric" principles, because no one can explain upon what principles it is based. It's simply a big wad of ignorant speculation set up to give false hope to people who mindlessly rail against what they think conventional science does.

"My conventional physics" predicts the behavior of the universe. I have little interest in any system that doesn't. Show me that the "esoteric" principles have predictive value, then I'll be interested.

Characterizing their claims as mysterious and beyond mortal comprehension is how these hucksters evade any meaningful evaluation of their claims. Rather than be pinned down to anything that can be shown wrong or right, they simply shift the goalposts any time something about their claims bumps up against fact.

I have absolutely no respect for a belief system set up to protect itself from substantial scrutiny.

[bazbear]

Well flying discs do have a major niche...

As sporting entertainment of an athletic variety, Wham-O's made a zillion bucks off the Frisbee...of course we're talking a hand flung object which, IIRC's weight, is circa 80-160 grams (depending on the model).

But does anyone want to fly a vehicle that spins at high revolutions like a Frisbee does anyway? Talk about dizzie ...not to mention making it work on a large scale.

I'm no engineer or designer, THAT'S for sure, but just try flying a Frisbee with no spin...a knuckle saucer if you will (edit for foreign friends: in in American baseball there is a pitch with no spin, called a knuckle ball...much easier to to do with a near perfect sphere than any sort of disc...though the practitioners are few and far between)...as Eric Idle once said "say no more, say no more, a nod's as good as a wink"

[Joe Durnavich]

So that's a huge nail in the Nazi saucer coffin.

Jay has been waiting his whole life to construct that very sentence.