Nazi UFOs - Part 3 Revenge Of The Nazi Nerdboy

One of the more startling pieces of information coming from the Nazi UFO hypothesis are "schematics". Some of these schematics show an object very similar to what George Adamski, Howard Menger and others photographed. Normally known as a 'scoutcraft' the object is called 'Haunebu 2' in the German UFO information. This in turn suggests that "Germans" were responsible for the contact cases of the 1950s and 60s and some people on the internet claim exactly that. The "schematics" supposedly prove that Adamski was contacted by Germans, and in turn Adamski bolsters the Nazi UFO hypothesis. I seriously doubt this is the case. I'm convinced that the Adamski information was simply hijacked and altered by people who fancy Nazi flying saucers. When you look at the actions of Nazi symphatisers you'll notice that revisionism often is one of their 'talents'.

Lets start off with the Haunebu 1 displayed above. Although not an exact match with an Adamski scoutcraft there are a lot of similarities. Immediately you'll notice that the drawing is rather poor and hardly the work of a selfrespecting aeronautical engineer. Supposedly these schematics, and there are a lot of them, were dug up from the secret SS archives and I believe Vladimir Terziski was involved in their discovery. What's interesting is that in the top of the "document" different types of crafts are listed, how many are available and how many are on order. What I can tell is that according to the document the Germans had 27 of these craft (different types) operating some time during the second world war. You'd think that they would rush a few of them to the frontline especially when the tide turned in favour for the Allies. Apparently that didn't happen.

Above is the "Haunebu 2" which is so similar to Adamski's scoutcraft. It becomes somewhat funny when you translate the text that comes with it, the "specs". Here's a rough translation of the German text;
HAUNEBU 2 - 7. November 1943 SS-Researchgroup 4
MEDIUM HEAVY ARMOURED FLYING DISC, TYPE HAUNEBU 2
Diameter: 26,3 Meters
Propulsion: Thule-Tachyonator 7o (armoured; TY.-disk: 23,1 Meter)
Guidance: Mag-Field-Impulser 4a
Speed: 6000 Kilometers p. Hour (up to 21000 possible)
Radius (in flighthours) : app. 55 hours
Armament: 6 8cm KSK in three turrots below, one 11cm KSK in top turrot
Outer armour: Threeplate "Victalen" (?)
Crewcompliment: 9 Men (transports up to 20 men)
(?): 100%
Hovering endurance: 15 minutes
General Flight Capabilities: Day and Night in all weather.
Basic Service Potential (v7): 85%

The capabilities that are listed (for 1943) are so amazing that it becomes highly unlikely that such a craft ever existed in the aircraft inventory of Nazi Germany. A craft with these specifications would be far superior to anything the Allies had. It becomes so mythical that it becomes equally unrealistic. Top speed 6000 KpH, 55 hours flight endurance, heavy caliber weapons onboard. Later I found out that KSK stands for "ray-guns".

To summarize, I think those "schematics" are fabrications and downright fraudulent. There's also a "document" showing a carrier called an Andromeda craft, again similar to what Adamski reported and photographed. The Andromeda "schematic" is again amateuristic at best. What I think happend is that some unstable person with (neo) Nazi sympathies copied the Adamski material, inserted elements that point to Nazi Germany involvement and then presented the material as genuine. I call such a shameless revisionist a 'Nazi Nerdboy'. 3 down for the Nazi UFO hypothesis.

P.S.
There's another clue why those "schematics" are such obvious fakes. When you take the pictures from the Adamski and Menger cases in front of you, you'll notice that the windows are not perfectly circular. This might be caused by the camera and the lighting (or flash). Strangely enough we see the same distortion in those Nazi UFO schematics (see above). It's a question off what is more likely. Did German engineers construct disproportionate windows, or did someone simply make a copy on paper and took that aspect of the photograph (unconsciously) with it? I'm leaning heavily towards the latter.