This is one of these old black & white movie clips they show on
disinformation programmes like, the Discovery Channel. It probably ran on
batteries! But I accept your reasoning on this subject, I'm no scientist!
Hazel.
You are correct in the aspect that if the Germans had
such technology they would have indeed won World
WarII.
But as I can recall the Germans invented that
technology at the end of the War, when the Allies
advanced on Berlin and they lost the war. Germans are
highly intelligent people; they invented things such
as the press, the first fighter aircrafts, U-boats,
Blimps,war tactics such as the Lightning war, V-1 and
V-2 rockets, and the first jets. A lot of famous
people also came from Germany; Albert Einstein and
Ludwig von Bheetoven for example.
There is no doubt in my mind that the Germans
invented flying saucers of some sort and that the
Nazis and the Japanese crashed landed while making a
joint saucer flight to Mars in the late 1940s.
As for Rudolf Hess I do not know where he went but I
know for a fact that he was not imprisoned in any
Nuremberg jail. In World War I he received scars in
battle and when he was examined after his capture he
did not have the scars! Also his plane had a different
code number than the one that he had (don't know full
story on that)
And Germans have the ability to have duplicates; a
look-alike person for dangerous missions. ( Perhaps it
was Hitler's expedition to the inner world?)
Russ
Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices
Sean: Thanks for your interesting comments. Supporting that theme, my wife reminded me that (according to another story) the Germans went to the moon long before us, on "one tank of kerosene." True? False?
- Dick
--------------------
Here is something from the error of mass site. The guy is following in the
line of Cater. This guy's comments are very appropriate to the HET and in
support of the existence of cavern worlds.
Gravity anomalies
In theory, all freely falling bodies -- individual atoms as well as
macroscopic objects -- should experience a gravitational acceleration (g) of
9.8 m/s² near the earth's surface. In reality, the value of g varies all
over the earth owing to its departure from a perfect sphere (i.e. the
equatorial bulge and local topography) and -- in the conventional theory --
to local variations in the density of the crust and upper mantle. These
'gravity anomalies' are believed to be fully explicable in the context of
newtonian theory. We have seen, however, that there is no empirical basis
for the assumption that gravity is proportional to inert mass.
Rather than being a direct function of the quantity of matter, the
strength of the gravitational force appears to depend on the electrical and
other properties of matter. The local gravity field may vary due to the
ability of negatively charged particles and ions to screen or counteract the
attractive force of gravity, and to the capacity of different types of rock
to emit and absorb gravity-inducing radiation under different conditions.
There may also be huge caverns in the earth's outer shell. This would be
impossible if the newtonian theory were correct and gravity had unlimited
penetrability, since pressures would increase all the way to the earth's
centre. Even a few miles beneath the earth's surface the immense pressures
would cause any large cavities to collapse. But if the orthodox assumptions
are wrong, many interesting possibilities open up
Particle beams do have reaction--like an ion drive.
Sean: Thanks for your interesting comments. Supporting that
theme, my wife reminded me that (according to another story) the
Germans went to the moon long before us, on "one tank of kerosene."
True? False?
- Dick
--------------------
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.247 / Virus Database: 120 - Release Date: 4/6/2001
Kirk,
It depends on what particles you are using, but really what I meant to
say was "directed energy" beams, not particle beams. (Then again I think
they are basically the same.)
A laser, particle, or microwave beam has little to no mass or reactionary
thrust, certainly not like a missle or ballistic projectile.
From what I know about ion drives, they have very little reactionary thrust,
never enough to do any good in the earths atmosphere. They are only meant
for deep space drives and this is for economy, not so much power. In deep
space a tiny amount of acceleration adds up over time.
We don't know how to design an ion drive that ejects much mass per unit
time.
The specific thrust per unit mass is higher than any chemical rocket. If
equivalent mass was ejected by the ion drive you would have more thrust than
the chemical rocket engine.
To put it in more definitive terms the thrust is proportional to the mass of
the ejecta and the velocity of the ejecta in accord with Newtons "equal and
opposite."
Particle beams accelerate charged particles that are many atoms. Ion drives
are usually monomolecular, monatomic in most demonstrated engines as ejecta
is usually a metal vapor ( cesium or mercury were the first models)
I have a copy of Tesla's "death ray" disclosure if such things interest you.
He was going to use tungsten particles or mercury. Due to its low mass
cesium would not be the best choice for a weapon used in the atmosphere.
Kirk
thrust,
never enough to do any good in the earths atmosphere. They are only meant
for deep space drives and this is for economy, not so much power. In deep
space a tiny amount of acceleration adds up over time.
Sean
Dick Fojut wrote:
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.247 / Virus Database: 120 - Release Date: 4/6/2001
The main point I was making is that projectiles and explosives were said
to be incompatible with the discs. It was said that even bullets caused
too much of a reaction against the low mass craft. Lasers & microwave
beams don't, at least not in practical direct comparison and in the earth
atmosphere. Specific thrust per unit mass isn't really the issue here.
It was somebody else's theory, I just thought I'd mention it.
I said it before and I'll say it again :"There is No
doubt as to the existence of a North Polar Opening
into the Inner World."There is too much evidence to
support it:
Warm Ocean Currents of Fresh Water--inner earth
rivers empty themselves in the Arctic through the
Polar Opening.
Coniferous Driftwood--The Contents of what inner
earth rivers carried in their flow;the presence of
limbs on branches of trees with green foliage upon
them,floating southward from the far North, far above
the latitude of where any such trees are found on the
outer crust. Olaf Jansen and his father found such
trees, 40 feet long and 2 feet in diameter.
Posted by/Russ
Yahoo! Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices
They may be incompatible for a different reason.
Strong transient e fields than could cause detonation would be a big
problem.
to be incompatible with the discs. It was said that even bullets caused
too much of a reaction against the low mass craft. Lasers & microwave
beams don't, at least not in practical direct comparison and in the earth
atmosphere. Specific thrust per unit mass isn't really the issue here.
It was somebody else's theory, I just thought I'd mention it.
Sean
Dick Fojut wrote:
Somewhere
could
it
the
weapons
Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.247 / Virus Database: 120 - Release Date: 4/6/2001