The UFO Iconoclast(s)

Tuesday, December 28, 2010



Many have touted the theory that the anomalous aerial craft seen in our skies are man-made. Authors of such material believe that UFOs are actually "secret US government experiments." Others maintain that these advanced craft are resultant from hidden "Tesla technologies." Still others maintain that there are really "WWII German flying saucers" and that we secured their designs. Some even believe that an "Illuminati" - or some closed cabal - controls this secret science.

A long line of researchers has promoted the idea that there has been a "legacy of suppression" of these amazing aerial technologies. They say that UFOs are craft of human construction. But all of these researchers are wrong. And incredibly, the US Government has itself quietly and craftily reinforced this fallacious "man-made UFO" belief over many decades.

The truth is that there are very good reasons that "genuine" UFOs cannot be the creation of man - and very good reasons to dismiss forever the notion that classified or covert human technology of any kind accounts for these strange craft.



There is no doubt that many sightings of UFOs are actually of advanced military aircraft. And there is no doubt that the U.S. military and Intelligence agencies do not mind when these craft are misperceived as "alien spacecraft." We do indeed have craft that are far ahead of what the public is generally aware. We've made circular craft and other craft of even far more novel appearance. And such ultra-high-performance craft are clandestinely test flown at places such as Area 51.

But many of the operational and design characteristics of some UFOs simply defy the limits of current human technology by anyone's measure - and will for at least many centuries. These characteristics include:
· The ability to "morph" appearance (including shape, density and size) often assuming craft configurations that are not even aerodynamic
· "Changing state" by exhibiting a defined material structure and then appearing as "engineered light" or plasma-like
· Seamlessly "splitting" from one craft into multiple craft - often creating formations
· Appearing in one part of the sky and - in a literal instant - appearing in a completely different part of the horizon
· Hovering silently and then moving at tremendous speed- without leaving a plume or contrail or without emitting a sonic boom
· Dodging advanced fighter jet intercepts and playing "cat and mouse" with the very military that should know of their existence
· Exhibiting flight maneuvers requiring G-forces that surpass the levels of human tolerance and endurance
· Displaying no rivets, bolts, welds, fittings, joints, seams (or intake and exhaust features) that are common and essential to all air and spacecraft in all history



On the very face of it there are very fundamental reasons why such fantastic craft cannot be our own. If we have had such aerial abilities for so many decades:

1) Why do they fly in full view of civilian populations or within commercial air routes?

With all of the hundreds of thousands of square miles of Area 51's and other such places, why fly publicly? It may test the "reaction" of the populace, but it would at the same time unnecessarily expose the technology and performance capabilities to enemy powers. In reality, security would never be compromised in that way.

2) Why don't we use this technology to transport our astronauts into space?

It makes no sense that if such UFO-like capabilities are man-made that they would not be applied in the exploration of the cosmos. Why continue to use "outdated" technology that relies on conventional combustion and thrust technologies, with extremely limited range and with significant safety issues?

3) Why is the technology not used in warfare?

If such things have been developed by our government, why have they not been applied in national defense? It would have instantly ended conflicts in past decades in Korea, Vietnam and Iraq. If another country has been the developer of UFO-like technology, why have they not exercised such amazing aerial superiority during conflict?

4) Why don't we use this technology in commercial air flight?

Such navigation and propulsion breakthroughs would revolutionize the flight of people and parcel. Billions would stand to be made- and everyone would appreciate shortened flights!

5) Why hasn't the aerial technology been used to take over the world?

If the "controllers" of such technology are of nefarious intent (i.e. former Nazis, the Illuminati or even an enemy country) why have they not openly displayed their terror technology and by now have commanded the world's allegiance?

6) Why haven't other scientists anywhere in the world "stumbled upon" such aerial breakthroughs in intervening decades?

It is inconceivable that only a very few working within deep black programs (or who were WWII Germans scientists, secret Tesla disciples or the like) could alone have discovered the secret to such propulsion without any other scientists or physicists in private or university employ ever having envisioned these same technologies after all of these years.



The truth is that the US Government really wants us to believe that UFOs are man-made, and even by the government itself! Promotion of this belief has been both subtle and direct.

In 1997, Gerald K. Haines, National Reconnaissance Office Historian, issued a lengthy statement (now archived on the CIA's website) entitled "CIA's Role in the Study of UFO's, 1947-90." Haines made official statements that "over half of all UFO reports from the late 1950s through the 1960s were accounted for by manned reconnaissance flights (namely the U-2) over the United States." Haines continues with this obvious absurdity, "The Air Force made misleading and deceptive statements to the public in order to protect an extraordinarily sensitive national security project."

Haines made these statements with great fanfare and received National Press Club attention. He even "slummed" and granted interviews on this to the paranormal press and sat for a lengthy interview with the now-defunct "Parascope." Haines became the government's "messenger man" that UFOs were man-made.

But such admission by the US government is disingenuous. It is a "second layer" of cover-up. That is, Haines is revealing a "state secret" that he should not be revealing. And he is doing this in order to cover up the "real" secret: Real UFOs are not man-made.

If what Haines says is true, why "blow the cover" of a valuable "technique" used to encourage the belief that sightings of experimental craft are UFOs? By stating such, Haines limits the ability of the US Government to ever be able to use this technique again in the future.

And not coincidentally, Haines' statements were made at a time when the Air Force was issuing "Roswell Reports" denying that the 1947 crash event was extraterrestrial. In that instance, the US Government also wanted us to believe that the UFO was ours - in the form of a Mogul balloon train. It is also during this same time period that the US Government officially acknowledged the existence of Area 51 as a hidden base for testing advanced craft. It is a pattern...

They would now have us believe that UFOs are in some way ours rather than Others. They'd rather confirm that we confuse the craft with advanced aerials of our own than to compromise the ultimate state secret: The UFOs are from other worlds.

Bear in mind too that Gerald Haines is associated with liars. The agency for which he works - the NRO - even denied its very existence for decades and then refused to report its location, nature of operations or its taxpayer-provided expenditures. In fact, I have in my possession a letter from the 1970s from the US Government denying that it had any knowledge of the National Reconnaissance Office!

And this is not the first time that the government has implicated itself as the cause of the UFO phenomenon...


In 1953 (the very year after the historic and still-mystifying UFO "wave" of 1952) the USAF commissioned a prototype VTOL (Vertical Takeoff and Landing craft) to the experimental "AVROCAR" that was disc-shaped. Later, images and films were released to the public of the AVRO disc in "flight." These films and pictures were distributed as reels and for TV and still today can be seen on YouTube. The silent implication was that "we fly the discs." It helped to fuel the belief later promoted by some researchers that the government's UFO craft account for the amazing aerials seen in the sky.

The truth though is this: The government would never have openly released such AVRO related material if they were really intensely planning on making secret, circular supersonic aircraft. If this really were a future and serious development goal, they would not let their enemies know about early experimental efforts in that direction.

And such discs were actually notoriously unstable. They lacked any kind of fine navigation and control - and could rise no higher than the height of a man. These circular plane-forms made short hops that were not considered true flight. Many aeronautical scientists to this day remain perplexed by just what the government was attempting to accomplish with these circular craft. They are considered by many to have been the world's worst aircraft.

But still, such images of such craft planted the seed that UFOs were man-made and even built in the USA. They continued to reinforce this idea by authorizing the release of ridiculous, fictional images (like the one pictured below) to instill somewhere in the back of the public's mind that we make the saucers:


A Note: Readers know that I maintain that the US Government does hold ET hardware from the 1947 Roswell crash. However I do not believe that we have been able to fully "reverse engineer" their craft. Given that the pilots are extra-temporal, their technological achievements are unable to be replicated in our time. We can attempt analysis, but we are very limited in our ability to learn details of its design- let alone its operation. The materials of construction of the craft however (as found in the "memory metal" debris) would be comparatively less difficult to attempt replication than entire engineered systems that could be made operational.)



It is a long-held notion by some that Nazi scientists perfected advanced aerial craft like flying saucers. Somehow after WWII the US took Nazi scientists under the "Paperclip" relocation program and encouraged them to engineer the UFOs that we see even today. Other versions say that the Nazis were in collusion with aliens or that they relocated to bases of saucer operation in Argentina. Of course all of this is entirely untrue. It is a complex story involving fake photos and documents, fraudulent science and deep-seated and historical reasons for belief in such "Nazi UFOs." What we really got from the Germans were rockets - not saucers. This issue is addressed very completely in a related post appearing in a 2009 blog, The Nazi UFO Lie (which can be found in the archived postings at this blog).


Just as some unscrupulous authors enlarge the Nazi advances in aerial technology, so too do the fanatical adherents to the early inventor Nikola Tesla. He is said by some to be the inventor of virtually everything. And just as websites pop up continually extolling Nazi saucer achievement, so too do websites that link Tesla's supposed UFO science. Googling keywords: Tesla + UFO yields an incredible 170,000 "matches" to sites expounding this nonsense.

In reality Tesla's technologies would in no conceivable way enable the flight and performance characteristics of some sighted UFOs. And Tesla's technologies do not relate to achieving "anti-gravity" as many maintain. In fact, Tesla is "not all that." He did not invent AC Power as proponents say. (Hippolyte Pixii did in 1832.) He did not invent the transformer. (William Stanley did in 1885.) And he most assuredly did not invent the induction coil as his followers insist. (Nicholas Callan did in 1836.) The truth is that Tesla was more of a theoretician than an applied, real-world engineer. Something of a showman, he often "borrowed" ideas wholesale from others and was "patent-happy." Tesla has nothing to do with UFOs.


Some propose that UFOs are the result of hidden technologies that are under the control of "The Illuminati" or a similar secret cabal that operates outside the auspice of any country's government. The "Illuminati" (or "Enlightened Ones") is a term that has designated various groups since the mid-1700s. There are many conflicting narratives about this group and researchers of it are rarely in agreement. The various secret plots and covert alliances they spout are as dizzying as they are paranoid. Some even link the illusive Illuminati with outer space technology. Others maintain that UFOs are human technology funded by the Illuminati, who also oversee its development and deployment. Googling keywords: Illuminati + UFOs yields nearly 350,000 "matches" to sites propping such utterly groundless belief. Such ideas are propounded by authors such as Jim Keith, in his 2004 Saucers of the Illuminati. Despite centuries of Illuminati speculation and conspiracy theory - there has never emerged even an iota of evidence that these private groups have influenced the direction of the history of technology in any continuing, appreciable way. Nor is there any proof whatsoever that they have developed "things of wonder" like UFOs and that they then keep them from the rest of us.



Mad Scientists, Nazis, Secret Societies and the US Military have all been implicated as being causes for the UFO by various people over the years. And all of these purported "causes" are wholly inadequate to explain the reported phenomenon. They are also often based on misguided beliefs. These beliefs find their roots in the concept of exclusion. For instance, most of us will never be as smart as a rocket scientist like Von Braun or as technically visionary as a Tesla. We will never be invited to be a Bilderberger or to become a member of the Trilateral Commission. And most of us reading this are not privy to the latest advances in technology that are held by the military and their contractors. Because we are excluded from these things, we create ideas and stories about them. We elevate them to places that they need not be elevated. We think that they are even behind the UFO.

People support such beliefs because they fear people from other planets. For them, it is easier and less "threatening" to assign a human cause to the UFO mystery. A non-human answer is unacceptable. Unlike the rabid skeptic - who cannot even accept that such strange craft flitter our skies - these misguided accept that such amazing aerial craft do exist. But they would rather believe that our own military is capable of such stellar technology. Or they would rather think that it is resultant from the "buried science" of "excluded engineers" whose designs are suppressed - or of a secret cabal that suppresses them. Still others wish to think that the once-feared German technology still somehow reigns the skies. Anything but the Alien. Not the Extraterrestrial...But this is indeed from whence the UFO comes.

These vehicles are not of Man. They come to Earth, but they are not from Earth. The craft are piloted by those who are at once interplanetary and inter-dimensional. No vaunted human science - no matter whose it may be - can match the fantastic feats of the real flying saucer phenomenon.


  • Tony, it wouldn't be "the government's" secret. It would be "the Alien's" secret. The "government" wouldn't matter.

    No way to even guess at the mind of an "Alien", but in human terms, its behavior the past 60 years has been tedious and uncommunicative.



    By Blogger Sourcerer, at Wednesday, December 29, 2010  

  • Hi Tony.

    What a great article. I couldn't agree more with its premise.

    But of course you are, uh, wrong. ;)

    Thanks for the great read.

    By Blogger Bob Koford, at Wednesday, December 29, 2010  

  • I would say your premise is flawed. It is built upon the supposition that eye-witness accounts of these marvelous aspects of "real" UFOs are to be believed without evidence. In fact, your premise is no less valid than others believing they are all top-secret military aircraft. Both are without hard evidence. Your Other Reasons... section is actually a far more compelling argument, since most points have an inherent logic. But then you lose me again by stating: "Readers know that I maintain that the US Government does hold ET hardware from the 1947 Roswell crash. However I do not believe that we have been able to fully "reverse engineer" their craft. Given that the pilots are extra-temporal, their technological achievements are unable to be replicated in our time." How you know any of this is really just amazing and doubtlessly boils down to a want to believe and a lot of hearsay from fantasy-prone, paranoid individuals. Because the government latched on to the ridiculous Flying Saucer hysteria to mask operations of their own, is not evidence of a disinformation campaign. It's just a smart tactic. Then, to finish with this narrative from a Saturday afternoon serial is beyond the pale: "These vehicles are not of Man. They come to Earth, but they are not from Earth. The craft are piloted by those who are at once interplanetary and inter-dimensional. No vaunted human science - no matter whose it may be - can match the fantastic feats of the real flying saucer phenomenon." I'm sorry, guys,but my respect just slipped a bit.

    By Blogger Cullan Hudson, at Wednesday, December 29, 2010  

  • I agree with almost everything you say, which is a rarity.

    The main problem is that these speeds, manoeuvers, shapes and the strange ability to suddenly appear and disappear, attributed to UFOs, may not be due to the UFOs themselves but due to the human mind. You are accepting these remarkable characteristics of UFOs at face value, whereas skeptics know the vagaries of human perception and have pointed this out countless times. It is no good ignoring this.

    Can you produce even one proven case, acceptable to science in general, where the UFO exhibited such strange feats as to point unmistakably to it being a visiting spacecraft? I have several in mind, but they can all, without exception, be placed in the borderline or 'dubious' category. See Allan Hendry's UFO HANDBOOK for discussion on this.

    What I am saying in essence is this: Please list 5 good cases (your best five) which lead you, inevitably, to the ETH conclusion.

    Beware: If these 5, or even 3 or 4 of them, are destroyed by skeptical counter arguments, or thereby rendered highly dubious in value, it is no good trying to claim there are plenty of other cases to produce if your original 5 fail.

    Note that I am not claiming I can personally refute your best cases. But it is likely, very likely, that others can do so, or have already done so.

    Anyway, Happy New Year. Are you expecting any new ET 'revelations' in 2011?

    By Blogger cda, at Wednesday, December 29, 2010  

  • CDA-

    Yes, many new investigations planned for 2011, including revelations on Bentwaters/Rendlesham.

    "Five Best Sightings" list might be a great idea!


    A bit surprised at your response. You seem to have always been somewhat supportive.


    By Blogger Anthony, at Wednesday, December 29, 2010  

  • "There was some hesitancy to post this latest opinion piece by Mr. Bragalia, but we thought it would provoke a legitimate debate, and it has, apparently."

    I think this is one of Tony's best pieces of the year.

    "Please list 5 good cases (your best five) which lead you, inevitably, to the ETH conclusion."

    1-Roswell . . . the closer I look the more convincing it is.

    2-Washington DC 1952.

    3-Kelly Johnson-1953.

    4-Deke Slayton-1951.

    5 (tie)-JAL over Alaska 1986/Belguim 1989/Hudson Valley 1983-84.

    By Blogger Frank Stalter, at Wednesday, December 29, 2010  

  • Mr. Stalter,

    Best is in the mind of the beholder.

    Mr. Bragalia always provides provocative material here, but he has written other things that callenge your "best" encomium.

    We expect he'll provide even better stuff in 2011.


    By Blogger RRRGroup, at Wednesday, December 29, 2010  

  • In no way was it my intention to come across as insulting, AJB. Although in rereading the comment, I admit it is somewhat blunt. I wrote this early, after a less than fantastic night.

    I have always (and have openly stated so on this blog) that, while I don't often agree with you, I admire your ability to dig deep within the UFO muck to find astounding gems, obscure tales, and amazing connections. And you always write your thoughts out intelligently and persuasively.

    This just wasn't one of those times where I could follow your line of thought--mostly because you made conclusions without supporting evidence. While I have seen compelling evidence that unusual and unexplainable aerial phenomena have been witnessed, I have yet to see any evidence proving claims of extraterrestrial, transdimensional, or temporal causes for these phenomena. Nor have I seen much evidence supporting the idea of otherworldly craft.

    There is some (and, mind you, only some) evidence to support claims that some unusual craft might be explained by unknown military aircraft.

    Trust me, I'd still rather read your thoughts on the subject than those involving interspecies love children spawned aboard saucers to bridge through peace, love, and puppies two very different worlds. So, while I stand by my statement (perhaps redacting the less-than-generous Saturday afternoon serial remark), I would by no means dissuade you from writing what you do.

    By Blogger Cullan Hudson, at Wednesday, December 29, 2010  

  • I didn't feel the need to go into specifics (as is being called for by others.) We know there are cases (probably at least 5), in the BB files, where an object had been spotted by pilots, seen and tracked by radar simultaneously, and then was seen to exit straight up, and out of site completely.

    With these cases, upon rolling through the alternative possibilties, one is quickly confronted with the ET roadblock.

    Where did "they" go?

    Images of the Challenger explosion come to mind, when contemplating these possibilties. Tony mentioned this conundrum, when he discussed the usage of this technology...for if it was "us" back then, then it would be "us" today.

    Where did the technology go?

    By Blogger Bob Koford, at Wednesday, December 29, 2010  

  • Tony -- you're in total denial. You don't even engage with the evidence about Tesla Nazi ufo technology. Here's an excellent recent article on the topic. But since you're in psychological denial I don't expect you to read or comment on it.

    By Blogger spiraldance, at Wednesday, December 29, 2010  

  • "While I have seen compelling evidence that unusual and unexplainable aerial phenomena have been witnessed, I have yet to see any evidence proving claims of extraterrestrial, transdimensional, or temporal causes for these phenomena. Nor have I seen much evidence supporting the idea of otherworldly craft."

    You being convinced, or me or anyone else who might read up on all this UFO stuff, is irrelevant. Were the people who ran our government and advanced the course of aeronautics convinced? The evidence is actually quite solid that they were and the ultimate proof is in the aircraft that have been developed in the post-WWII era.

    Advances in aviation have always involved a lot of guesswork with a slide rule.

    Sometimes the guesses are wrong, like the Avrocar, sometimes they are right. See the breaking of the sound barrier with the Bell X-1 . . . bullets can travel faster than sound, so let's build a plane shaped like a bullet.

    That proved to be a good guess. It's what happened after that, and Roswell which happened just 3 months earlier, when things started to get interesting.

    By Blogger Frank Stalter, at Wednesday, December 29, 2010  

  • This is weak beer indeed.

    These phenomena may be interdimensional and protean (John Keel, Jacques V.)...

    They may be "Visitors from Time" (available from Amazon)

    They may be man-made, representing technology built upon on a single breakthrough physical concept no one else has.

    As man made, they may be flown or remotely controlled.

    The idea of the military disseminating secret technology with the commercial world (or even within the gov) is absurd.

    Black budgets are not detailed with line items, nor are they closely reviewed.

    Within the gov, the left hand has no idea what the right hand is doing.

    By Blogger Dimitri, at Wednesday, December 29, 2010  

  • Fantastic piece of writing, Tony. There's such an endless avalanche of nonsensical theorizing on this topic that lucid, rational analysis often seems a pretty hopeless cause. Once in a great while a strong, clear voice emerges from the muck of credulous stupidity and self-aggrandizing pseudo-skepticism and this piece is a sterling example of that.

    By Blogger Christopher Knowles, at Wednesday, December 29, 2010  

  • Thanks Cullan. Appreciate the clarification and I enjoy your blog "Strange State" btw...AJB

    By Blogger Anthony, at Wednesday, December 29, 2010  

  • Wonderful article Anthony, I agree with Frank that this is easily one of the best posts of the year. I think this is such a great post simply because it tackles the subject as a whole, which can sometimes be lost amongst the mucky-muck. I, for one, was not a fan of the Templeton Spaceman photos saga...that's something I think was repeated "ad nauseum", and to what end? I mean, even if somehow it was proven that was a spaceman, and if even after that, it was somehow proven that he was at the missle launch in Woomera, what does that tell you? It's much like string theory...dubious hypothesis, with no way to prove them, and even if you what? How does that help you in any way?

    Anyway, rambling over. I have to agree with probably 99% of what's in this article. I like the fact Anthony throws in some opinions in there, like the interdimensional comments. I happen to have reached the same conclusions, and it's not always easy to explain the specific cases that swayed you to this perspective, although it's probably a valuable exercise to try. As for five cases that aren't dubious, I think a great source for this is the newly released book "UFOS: Generals, Pilots, and Government Officials Go on the Record" by Leslie Kean. This book was written from the perspective of a skeptic who, after seeing the evidence, became sure a phenomenon was occurring, and one which she doesn't see much of a better explanation than ET (although she never outright says that). Speaking of which, I'm quite surprised that this book never received a review on this site, or even a mention. Do the authors have something against Ms. Kean, or the material within her book, or has this one just slipped through the radar? It's got to easily be the most mainstream book that has hit in a while on the subject, so for that alone I think it's an important read to see where public opinion may be at.

    Anyway, sorry I got to rambling so much..long time reader of the blog, and plan on commenting more in the new year. Keep up the amazing work!

    By Blogger Armakan, at Wednesday, December 29, 2010  

  • What? No mention of any of the evidence about Nazi UFOs? I posted a link to an article but still no discussion of the evidence. Here's some leads for Tony:
    Professor Giuseppe Belluzzo, J. Andreas Epp, Georg Klein, Horst Schuppmann, George Lusar, Renato Vesco, Wilhelm Landig, and many others.

    I posted this comment to UFOmystic just in case Tony censors it.

    By Blogger spiraldance, at Wednesday, December 29, 2010  

  • Spriraldance-

    There certainly is mention of Nazi UFOs! Please Google in quotes (as the article suggests) "The Nazi UFO Lie" to read an article from last year debunking this.

    And I do not own this website- I do not delete anything! I am merely a contributor!


    By Blogger Anthony, at Thursday, December 30, 2010  

  • Tony, very nice work once again. I've thought many of these things but never put them all down as elegantly as you have, and I agree with just about all of your conclusions and assertions. I'm still "on the fence" as far as "inter-dimensional" beings, but that doesn't detract from your sensible conclusion that these vehicles cannot be explained as being merely man-made.

    By Blogger NearSide, at Thursday, December 30, 2010  

  • "constructive interpretation of the phenomenon-and the study of it potential causes and origins- are as important (I believe) as reporting on the events and sightings themselves."

    Absolutely! The evidence of the UFO phenomenon doesn't rest on a famous sighting or any group of them. It rests on the reaction of the government/military . . . what they did in direct response and how their developments in the aviation field has been clearly influenced by it.

    Being more convinced than ever that it is all very real, the next step is, based on the best evidence available, determining who is behind it all and I am equally convinced we need to focus our attention not on the skies but on our great bodies of water.

    Flying saucer?

    Batwing as described by Roswell witnesses?

    Memory metal in action?

    By Blogger Frank Stalter, at Thursday, December 30, 2010  

  • Tony I already read your Nazi UFO lies article as you had posted the link. The only person you mention on my list is Vesco -- and that leaves out half a dozen other sources!!

    Hello? Again please engage with the evidence. Or will the psychological run around continue.

    I'm posting this message on ufomystic again since it will most likely get censored. Below is the "modified" list left for the evidence you still haven't engaged with. Good luck Tony:

    Professor Giuseppe Belluzzo, J. Andreas Epp, Georg Klein, Horst Schuppmann, George Lusar, Wilhelm Landig, and many others.

    By Blogger spiraldance, at Thursday, December 30, 2010  

  • Spiraldance-

    I've just re-read two "classic" books promoting such Nazi nonsense, "Hitler's Flying Saucers" by Henry Stevens and "Man-Made UFOs 1944-1994" by Renato Vesco and David Childress. I strongly suspect that this is the kind of literature that you are consulting when arriving at these names and conclusions.

    Despite strong speculation and innuendo, neither book makes the needed connection between theory and engineering achievement. I do not question that the Nazis were engaged in the development of novel and advanced aircraft (including circular craft.) But there is simply no evidence that such saucer designs ever became more than experimental systems.

    The idea of such saucers was to create a VTOL (Vertical Takeoff and Landing) vehicle because German airstrips were being bombed by the Allies and they could not take off. So they scrambled for VTOL. But saucers proved a poor, unworkable design for both Germany and the US. Of course the real VTOL achievement was in the optimization of the helicopter!

    And if you are reading books like those mentioned above (or by authors such as William Lyne)- they are riddled with errors and fabrication. An example: On page 238 of the Steven's book he reproduces the Zanesville, OH UFO photo taken in 1966 by a town barber. Steven's says this is an example of a "renegade craft" of German design- a "Nazi UFO." In point of fact, the barber who took the photo later confessed he has hoaxed it. My point is that if you are reading that kind of low-rent material, you really should "consider the source."


    By Blogger Anthony, at Thursday, December 30, 2010  

  • Sonic Booms...until someone can be honest about how a radar "target" and visible object seen a couple thousand feet in the air by witnesses, doesn't make a sonic boom, yet a jet following can create a sonic boom--please fill me in. And please explain during the jet age of the 1950s, how it was also possible. Now if you want to use the magic of black budget and holograms, then I'll use the same catch all logic to say the aliens are hiding in the black budget in cyro-chambers and that the aliens make the holograms to entertain their kids, because neither statement is provable.

    And no, I'm not going to allow for muffled (not silent) Boeing/Lockhhed tech that is on the drawing board now, to suddenly be time warped back to the 1950s. I and 60 Minutes await your irrefutable proof.

    By Blogger Robert, at Thursday, December 30, 2010  

  • Tony -- Thanks again for not censoring the evidence for NAZI ufos -- yet. So far you say there's simply no evidence beyond Nazi "experimental" craft. Tony if you engage with the evidence it's clear that it's more than just "experimental" -- it is operational.

    Nick Redfern documents a 1952 NATO U.K. sighting of a triangle craft. Edgar Fouche has a photo of the Nazi triangle "flying wing" from the 1940s. Sure it was experimental but it was also operational and a deep black project taken over by the U.S.

    The U.S. hired over 4,000 Nazis to work in Eastern Europe and to work on propulsion and mind control in the U.S. -- 1,200 Nazis in the U.S. Even now this evidence about Nazi CIA collusion is "experimental" when, as Hank Albarelli details -- it's beyond "experimental" -- it was "operational." The same truth exists for the secret military craft.

    Michael Schratt did an excellent MUFON 2010 lecture on NAZI UFOs. Again the evidence is not just for "experimental" Nazi ufos -- but operational.

    There's the NAZI ufo excerpt by Michael Schratt. With Schratt we get detailed evidence instead of vague dismissals as you have done.

    Finally Tony, I, myself, in 1997, had a very close encounter with an equilateral big black triangle craft. It flew so close I could have hit it with a rock. I saw it fly over the north end of our yard but I tracked the craft from the horizon. It is military and my area is in a military test flight corridor.

    Unlike UFO Hunters -- there is no reason to test the equilateral triangle craft as possible balloons, etc. -- I didn't just see the lights. I saw the craft up close. These are not blimps -- but, in fact, as the Belgium discovered, as super fast craft with secret propulsion -- electrogravitic propulsion.

    So I know the military has top secret propulsion equilateral triangle craft -- from a lineage going back to 1952, based on the same triangle craft made by the Nazis, as documented in the sources you have dismissed at hand, without even engaging with the details.

    Here's Michael Schratt, again with explicit details, about the military triangle craft.

    O.K. Tony so are you going to censor the real evidence about Nazi UFOs? Or are you just going to pretend to engage with it -- saying you've read the books but dismiss it as just "experimental?"

    I will post this again on UFOmystic just in case you try to hide the detailed evidence.

    By Blogger spiraldance, at Thursday, December 30, 2010  

  • Tony -- Nick Redfern documents a 1952 NATO U.K. sighting of a triangle craft. Edgar Fouche has a photo of the Nazi triangle "flying wing" from the 1940s. Sure it was experimental but it was also operational and a deep black project taken over by the U.S.

    Michael Schratt did an excellent MUFON 2010 lecture on NAZI UFOs. Again the evidence is not just for "experimental" Nazi ufos -- but operational.

    There's the NAZI ufo excerpt by Michael Schratt. With Schratt we get detailed evidence instead of vague dismissals as you have done.

    Finally Tony, I, myself, in 1997, had a very close encounter with an equilateral big black triangle craft. It flew so close I could have hit it with a rock. I saw it fly over the north end of our yard but I tracked the craft from the horizon. It is military and my area is in a military test flight corridor.

    So I know the military has top secret propulsion equilateral triangle craft -- from a lineage going back to 1952, based on the same triangle craft made by the Nazis, as documented in the sources you have dismissed at hand, without even engaging with the details.

    Here's Michael Schratt, again with explicit details, about the military triangle craft.

    By Blogger spiraldance, at Thursday, December 30, 2010  

  • Mr. Bragalia,

    Your posts are always entertaining
    if nothing else, but you are in good company. Regarding the discussion
    at hand I have two key observations:

    1) You fail to address "sticky" issues with the Nazi UFO connection. Sources sited online show that the Horten designs for flying kites actually inspired Northrop. They also claim that one Horten Ho 229 was taken for evaluation by the US Military post-WWII as part of Paper-Clip.
    While it's true the Horten's were removed from some project leads in favor of Gothaer Waggonfabrik (perhaps they were not technically adept-to your point, but then again, he only slightly tweeked the design, and most reported problems were with the landing gear). The Ho 229 was also tested and proven to have early stealth capabilities. Whatever the military and Northrop thought of some of the brother's far out designs, they took quite a different view on OTHERS. As one reader pointed out (and you failed to address) a comparison of the 229 with Arnold's sighting bears a striking resemblance, and frankly, the time frame is uncanny. Apparently Paperclip was not all rockets as you so blithely put it.

    2)Your man made-UFO article has more holes than Swiss cheese. By the very nature, you should be providing evidence of ETH not trying to dismiss evidence against it. One example, look up Plasma stealth on Wikipedia. I won't quote all, but it does mention wrapping plasma around a aerial craft to avoid RCS detection. Interesting again considering the Horten designed Ho 229 produced a conducting element. Indeed one might want to disguise the use of a very visible plasma craft with stories of ET. Just one example. Love to hear your thoughts not just silence. More to come. =)

    By OpenID markrobin12, at Friday, December 31, 2010  

  • Here is the kind of 'proof' the ET proponents use:

    There are several thousand unexplained cases, some looking very good indeed. Since each of these has a probability of perhaps 0.5, at the most, of being explainable (due to insufficient information or perhaps missing data or other shortcomings in the original sighting report), the probability that ALL these thousands of cases could be thus explained is 0.5 raised to the power 1000 (at least), or 1 in 10 to the 300, i.e. virtually zero.

    Therefore, by ET logic, it is as near certain as you can get that at least ONE of these cases is a real UFO, i.e. an ET craft. Thus the case for ET craft is proven.


    Now if you can spot the fallacy in this reasoning, please let us know.
    Are scientists all blind to the obvious? Or have they recognised the fallacy?

    By Blogger cda, at Friday, December 31, 2010  

  • Yeah that's stupid ETH logic. Science, as an enterprise, is only a few hundred years old. There's a lot of things left unexplained -- sonoluminescence, dark energy, dark matter, the ecological crisis, the water crisis. Science is not some "clean" process but works through reductionism -- destroy something and try to put it back together. So science is destroying planet Earth and trying to put it back together. Inexplicable? Yes -- it's now official -- it's called "quantum chaos" -- the cutting edge of science. Supercomputers at Los Alamos can create "quantum chaos" but the logic itself remains inexplicable. In other words the technology is in control. Professor Steven Strogatz, a quantum chaos expert, remarks on this in his 2006 "The Edge" interview.

    Just because something is not explainable has nothing to do with it being little green men, or "grays", or whatever other extraterrestrial fantasy spoon-fed by the CIA mass media.

    By Blogger spiraldance, at Friday, December 31, 2010  

  • One thing that seems rarely covered when the discussions of Nazi technology stories are used to explain the UFO is the motive behind the sightings.

    Even with the ETH, the motive behind the sighting is usually discussed.

    Why is the UFO hovering near or over Atomic NRG sites?

    Especially if there is "stealth" technology involved: Why is the UFO being "obvious" at all?

    Why does the UFO appear during major conflicts? (this one most common to discuss, obviously)

    Why is the UFO evasive?

    Why has the UFO exhibited such far ahead technologies since at least 1942?

    If the answer to the last question is that the Nazis aquired their first disc in the thirties, then the valid qhestion is:

    Why didn't they use it to win the war?

    The motive for the sighting must be rationalized. For instance, I remember that at the beginning of the first "Gulf War" there appeared stories in the press of locals seeing giant triangles in the sky. One local was quoted as saying something like"...they must be stealing the gold."

    Theres a motive, whether its actual, logical or whimsical, its a motive. And for that, yes, stealth technology...but hovering over a city, a freeway, or some other "obvious" locale?

    By Blogger Bob Koford, at Friday, December 31, 2010  

  • Markrobin12-

    "You should be providing evidence of ETH" - surely you are joking? That is what I have done for years, please Google keywords: Bragalia UFOs

    Re: Horten. So what? The brothers built many wooden flying wings. They were used in some sailplane competitions. 2 were equipped with turbojets and tested a couple of times, resulting in one crashing (some attribute this to inherent design flaws.) Go to the National Air and Space Museum as I have. You can see the Horten. I was so excited to see it, and disappointed when I did.

    May I suggest to both you and Spriral: Google for Kevin McClure's masterful analysis: "Nazi UFO Mythos" which artfully demolishes the "elevation" of the Hortens to near Tesla-like adoration- and which outlines very clearly -and point by point- Nazi aerial achievement.


    By Blogger Anthony, at Friday, December 31, 2010  

  • "· The ability to "morph" appearance (including shape, density and size) often assuming craft configurations that are not even aerodynamic
    · "Changing state" by exhibiting a defined material structure and then appearing as "engineered light" or plasma-like "

    By Blogger Frank Stalter, at Friday, December 31, 2010  

  • Again the issue here is psychological. The "UFOs hovering over nukes" is a myth. James Carlson tears about the lies about the UFO Nukes -- centered on the supposed strongest case at Malstrom. The only problem being that Walt Figel and Eric Carlson continually insist any mention of UFOs was a blatant joke made by someone underground. Robert Salas kept changing his story about where he even worked and has no documentation to back up his UFO claims, while clearing relying on the earlier joke at Echo Flight. But all this detailed evidence is ignored because of the CIA media blitz promoting extraterrestrials. Any mention of the evidence just causes ad hominems at James Carlson.

    That's also what Kevin McClure's article is about -- he goes person to person desperately searching for some reason to reject their credibility. So Vesco is supposedly wrong because the foo fighters, controlled by radio, would not be able tell which craft was an enemy. Unless, of course, there were no friendly craft in the vicinity -- and the foo fighters were the only friendly craft. An option McClure ignores.

    Since no one can deny that the Horten Ho was the inspiration for a lineage of flying wing triangle craft -- then the obvious conclusion has to be made. The Nazis had at least one ufo type craft that was operational and the circumstantial evidence is overwhelming that the Nazis had several other types as well.

    Again Michael Schratt gives excrutiating details on these other types of ufo crafts -- yet does Tony even engage with the evidence? Nope.

    Hey every one is entitled to their own religious beliefs but it's kind of like when the Mormons want to talk to you. Just get the hell out of there and don't waste your time in a meaningless run around by the brainwashed.

    By Blogger spiraldance, at Saturday, January 01, 2011  

  • SpiralDance wrote: "Robert Salas kept changing his story about where he even worked and has no documentation to back up his UFO claims, while clearing relying on the earlier joke at Echo Flight."

    +1 (* 1000).

    Where and with who, if I can add...

    But James Carlson (or Tim Hebert) concerning Malmstrom incident, e-book works, articles and interventions, are not ignored, be sure of that;) At least in my humble country (France).

    Best Regards. BTW: I profit that reply to wish an happy new year 2011 to all there in ufo iconoclast. Plenty of good things, for you, your Family and your closers, sincerly.

    Gilles F.

    By Blogger Gilles. F., at Saturday, January 01, 2011  

  • Anthony,

    I've been reading your thoughtful, and at times, very illuminating, posts for quite a while now. Your latest entry on the subject of ETH and the government’s role in masquerading these possible alien visitations as simply military hardware was excellent. What a shallow smokescreen it is, and I thank you for taking the time to poke a few more holes in it. By now, the material our government uses for the cover-up is so frayed that I don’t see how it stays in place at all. It looks like the people in charge of keeping the lid on things have finally mastered the art of using typical Human gullibility as duct tape these days.

    That common denominator behind some people’s desire to make the potential alien presence “not real” may indeed be a deep seeded fear of a power or presence greater than humankind and their inability to ascertain its threat. For some, that’s truly a terrifying prospect. Doesn’t history show us time and time again that the collective has always had trouble coming face to face with a completely foreign world view or counter paradigm, which is what you are offering them and making no bones about it?

    I’ve no doubt missed more than a few of your offerings but on the occasion I do read your words and examine the comments, I usually notice the same group of skeptical responders essentially stating the same theme.
    ‘You can't concretely prove anything you’re stating so I simply will not believe you, regardless of how logical or well-vetted the material may be.’ When you try and give them the best evidence imaginable, or at any rate, what’s available for public consumption:
    ‘The people reporting,’ no matter how credible, be they policeman, pilots, politicians, preachers, or literally crowds of people, are either misidentifying a manmade object or natural phenomenon, or conversely, they're attention-seeking, mendacious parasites and tricksters, the whole lot of them.’

    I believe it must truly get terribly old for all involved factions. For my part, I'm almost completely convinced that there’s a great deal of substance to the ETH mystery, although I would speculate if they are truly “alien” in nature and not simply our progenitors, perhaps having been among us all along… or at a minimum, watching their children from afar (Would the skeptics find more comfort in that notion? Probably not.).

    But I suppose everyone has their part to play in this seemingly never-ending game of half-truths, shadows, sleight of hand, and illusions played out by the powers that be like some postmodern tragic comedy that includes a seemingly endless third act.


    Bravo to the author and may you find the strength to endure in the coming years. I believe the campaign is far from over and neither side has come close to striking a truly decisive blow, regardless of what some propaganda machine would have us, the spectators, believe.

    The fight just entered Round… ah, by this point, who’s counting, right?

    By Blogger revellyre, at Sunday, January 02, 2011  

  • It is quite possible for multiple parts of this story to be true. For instance, there is absolutely no reason why Tesla, the Nazis, the government, aliens, etc, could not ALL have invented UFO technology of various types. To imply that one being true automatically discounts others is fallacious. That's just getting started, and ought to be basic logic for you.
    It is possible to prove a positive, but impossible to prove a negative. You should know that.
    For instance, maybe the government uses rockets, but behind the scenes uses UFO technology, you don't know.
    Maybe the organization that used to be known as the Illuminati control the government through the bank of England and don't want you off the planet. Maybe they already control the world, and maybe they don't want the advanced technology being used in war because they'd rather profit from the slow advance of nations being pitted against each other and being forced to buy small increments in hardware technology.
    Maybe the aliens are already here and have been here for thousands of years, in which case they probably control the world. Maybe they decide when wars are fought and what the result will be. Maybe they've always been in control.
    All of this can be true at once.

    By Blogger Jake, at Sunday, January 02, 2011  

  • Certainly supports the point that the Air Force had no clue about where these UFO's came from (in the 60's):

    By Blogger J, at Sunday, January 02, 2011  

  • I don't agree with the conclusions, especially the conclusion that since we are not using these vehicles today that they can't be manmade.

    In a hundred years we managed to from cart and horse to cars and planes. We also went from paper books to quick computers.

    I have no doubt there were German scientist (who maybe backward engineered this technology) and we have advanced it throughout the years. We may be already flying these vehicles to the moon and also mining on the moon. Who knows?

    To assume otherwise would be no more crazy then assuming they haven't.

    By Blogger Terminator, at Sunday, January 02, 2011  

  • You can discount the idea that a faction in the US government knows that UFOs are ET (or interdimensional or time travellers) and is promoting, as a cover, the man-made secret aircraft thesis for public consumption.

    The USAF, the CIA or whatever, have absolutely no way of controlling the ET's actions, nor have they any way of controlling what goes on in hyperdimensional spacetime. Therefore how can they possibly predict what such supposed entities will do in the future?

    The best the authorities can hope for is that a given incident (say Roswell) occurs ONCE ONLY and never happens again. Otherwise, any attempt to try and cover it up and promote a manmade explanation is certain to fail. Moreover it would make the authority responsible for the cover-up a laughing stock in the eyes of the rest of the world.

    So I say to AJB that if he really believes the USAF, or any other official body, knows the true (i.e. unearthly) nature of UFOs but is promoting an earthly answer as a cover story, it is a preposterous notion. It is just plain untenable.

    By Blogger cda, at Monday, January 03, 2011  

  • Revellrye-

    Thank you for your kind words.


    By Blogger Anthony, at Monday, January 03, 2011  

  • Tony,

    I'll post here again, and looking back at my post, I get it. You've written some interesting things, but you are obviously ignoring things.
    I already conceded the limitations
    of some of the Horten's designs (which is why in some cases there may been projects moved to other scientists). I understand the German propaganda, the hyping of the "Vril", etc.etc.etc. Guess what? You can also follow the trail to America. I never said there was nothing to the ETH (like some here) in my first post. Foo fighters were no mere stories. WWII was a crazy time, and if anything could draw "it" out of from wherever "it" was hiding in plain site, that was the time. That being said, however, or by whatever means, (the dark politics we will never know), the technology to develop disks WAS moving forward based on some fundamentally sound physics after the war. Interesting how the entire SHAPE of a saucer dropped out of site post 1960's. It all went black budget. Hell black-hole budget, no budget. There may be others in the fight, but my contention is that post Paper-Clip (these guys were not quacks) we had the goods.

    You cannot just laugh that off Tony.The record is clear.

    By OpenID markrobin12, at Friday, January 07, 2011  

  • Very well written, but we are like the fish in fish bowl trying to understand a world through the glass surrounding us. We are not capable of anything but perceptions and limited testing in a limited area we can manipulate or exist in. I perceive these craft not as ships or saucers but creatures of great intelligence and capabilities. If a human tried to control or attack or gather information from one, is like a fish trying to conquer dry land. Great disadvantage and will not be successful and would only be useful to the interdimensionables. They would have total control of the situation, perceptions, means and outcome.

    So, the conclusion is even if we (science, military, governments, abductees)have some perceptions that seem correct, it is not reflecting what is truly behind their infiltation of and working in humanity. We do not have the mental power to come to the right conclusions or science to set up the dynamics to find out.

    This is the reality. Communication with such as mentioned before is like a fish trying to understand our world and ways. Not likely unless the fish can be morphed into one of us and experience the life as we live it. Yet, they could not tell their fellow fish. It would be totally beyond the grasp. Therefore, better not to reveal it...

    Don't look up or within-Look To.


    By Blogger Arthur_of_Old, at Tuesday, March 13, 2012  

  • They are the one third of the angels Satan took with him,reserved in darkness for judement.

    By Blogger MrRobertBarnes, at Thursday, June 05, 2014  

Post a Comment

<< Home