From: John.Powell@p0.f4.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG (John Powell)
Subject: A Few Questions...
Date: 17 Mar 94 05:24:00 GMT
Organization: FidoNet node 9:1010/4.0 - <ParaNet(sm) , Cockeysville MD


A few items here don't make sense.  If anybody has any ideas I'd be
happy to hear them...

First, some excerpts from: The Horten Flying Wing in World War II: The
History & Development of the Ho 229, by H. P. Dabrowski, translated from
the German by David Johnson. (Schiffer Military History Vol. 47, ISBN
0-88740-357-3)

        - In February 1945 Heinz Scheidhauer flew the H VII to
          Gottingen. Hydraulic failure prevented him from extending the
          aircraft's undercarriage, and he was forced to make a belly
          landing. The resulting damage had not been repaired when, on
          April 7, 1945, US troops occupied the airfield. The aircraft
          presumably suffered the same fate as the H V and was burned.

        - The [H IX V1, RLM-Number 8-229] machine was sent to Brandis,
          where it was to be tested by the military and used for
          training purposes. It was found there by soldiers of the US
          9th Armored Division at the end of the war and was later
          burned in a "clearing action."

        - Construction of the H IX V3 was nearly complete when the Gotha
          Works at Friederichsroda was overrun by troops of the American
          3rd Army's VII Corps on April 14, 1945. The aircraft was
          assigned the number T2-490 by the Americans. The aircraft's
          official RLM designation is uncertain, as it was referred to
          as the Ho 229 as well as the Go 229. Also found in the
          destroyed and abandoned works were several other prototypes in
          various stages of construction, including a two-seat version.
          The V3 was sent to the United States by ship, along with other
          captured aircraft, and finally ended up in the H. H. "Hap"
          Arnold collection of the Air Force Technical Museum. The
          all-wing aircraft was to have been brought to flying status at
          Park Ridge, Illinois, but budget cuts in the late forties and
          early fifties brought these plans to an end. The V3 was handed
          over to the present-day National Air and Space Museum (NASM)
          in Washington D.C.

>From these excerpts we see that certainly by late April or early May,
1945, the US had not just knowledge but at least semi-functional
examples of the Horten flying wing.  I'm recklessly assuming that the US
would have wanted these craft back home for study as soon as was
practical.

Lieutenant General Twining's (Commander of the Army Materiel Command)
September 23, 1947, letter to Brig. General Schulgen (Commanding General
Army Air Forces) states:

        f.  It is possible within the present U.S. knowledge - provided
            extensive detailed development is undertaken--to construct a
            piloted aircraft which has the general description of the
            object in subparagraph (e) above which would be capable of
            an approximate range of 700 miles at subsonic speeds.

Why only possible?  The Horten flying wing(s) had already been in our
possession for two years.

Twining continues:

        g.  Any devlopments in this country along the lines indicated
            would be extremely expensive, time consuming and at the
            considerable expense of current projects and therefore, if
            directed, should be set up independently of existing
            projects.

Why expensive?  The design, prototype and development work had already
been completed.  Is this a dodge for more money?

Twining points out:

        h.  Due consideration must be given the following:

            (1)  The possibility that these objects are of domestic
                 origin - the product of some high security project not
                 known to AC/AS-2 or this command.

How likely is it that the AMC was unaware of the captured Horten flying
wing(s)?

Twining states that "This opinion was arrived at in a conference between
personnel from the Air Institute of Technology, Intelligence T-2,
Office, Chief of Engineering Division, and the Aircraft, Power Plant and
Propeller Laboratories of Engineering Division T-3."  How likely is it
that these groups were unaware of the captured Horten flying wing(s)?

Phil Klass [SUN #26, March 1994] quotes Air Intelligence Report No.
100-203-79, December 10, 1948: "The origin of the devices [UFOs] is not
ascertainable.  There are two reasonable possibilities:  (1) The objects
are domestic [U.S.] devices.... (2) Objects are foreign, and if so, it
would seem most logical to consider that they are from a Soviet source.
The Soviets possess information on a number of German flying-wing type
aircraft, such as the Gotha P60A, Junkers EF-130 long-range jet bomber
and the Horten 229 twin-jet fighter, which particularly resembles some
of the descriptions of unidentified flying objects."

This report was prepaed by the US Air Force's Directorate of
Intelligence and the Office of Naval Intelligence and more than a year
has passed since Twining's letter.

How is it that these agencies believe that it is the Germans who have
the captured Horten flying wing(s) or just information when, by this
time, the US has had them for at least three years?  What value would
there be in pointing the finger at the Soviets _and_ suggesting that
they have aircraft far in advance of our own?

Klass contends that the USAF Directorate of Intelligence and the Office
of Naval Intelligence demonstrate no knowledge of a Roswell-related
crashed object/disk because there wasn't such an incident.  Yet, three
years after the fact, these same offices demonstrate no knowledge of the
US possession of the Horten flying wing(s).

Klass can't have it both ways - and neither can the rest of us.

If these offices were not aware of the US possession of the Horten
flying wing(s) then the so-called UFO cover-up exceeded their
need-to-know and began _before_ the Roswell incident.

If these offices were aware of the US possession of the Horten flying
wing(s) then why would they not acknowledge such (in a Top Secret
document that took 37 years to declassify)?

Thanks, take care.
John.
-
<Absence of Evidence is not Evidence of Absence>


--  
John Powell - via ParaNet node 1:104/422
UUCP: !scicom!paranet!User_Name
INTERNET: John.Powell@p0.f4.n1010.z9.FIDONET.ORG
======================================================================
Inquiries regarding ParaNet, or mail directed to Michael Corbin, should
be sent to: mcorbin@paranet.org.  Or you can phone voice at 303-429-2654/
Michael Corbin
Director
ParaNet Information Services