TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE 1 CHAPTER ONE: THE SITUATION WITHIN NAZI GERMANY 13 CHAPTER TWO: RELIABLE SOURCES 29 CHAPTER THREE: AN OVERVIEW OF THE GERMAN CONVENTIONAL SAUCER PROJECTS THE SCHREIVER-HABERMOHL PROJECT(S) THE MIETHE-BELLUZZO PROJECT FOO FIGHTERS THE PEENEMUENDE SAUCER PROJECT CHAPTER SUMMARY 41 CHAPTER FOUR: THE GERMAN FIELD PROPULSION PROJECTS THE VICTOR SCHAUBERGER MODELS THE KM-2 ROCKET FIELD PROPULSION SAUCERS A GERMAN EYE WITNESS A COMBINED INTELLIGENCE OBJECTIVES SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT THE SMOKING GUN: AN F.B.I. REPORT DISCUSSION OF GERMAN FIELD PROPULSION SAUCER ATOMIC SAUCERS AGAIN THE KARL SCHAPPELLER DEVICE 121 CHAPTER FIVE: LORE AND LOOSE ENDS: A DISCUSSION OF GERMAN SAUCERS 203 CHAPTER SIX: "SONDERBUERO" 233 CHAPTER SEVEN: DISPOSITION OF GERMAN SAUCER TECHNOLOGY AFTER THE WAR 241 CHAPTER EIGHT: CONCLUDING THOUGHTS 261  PREFACE This book is a guide into the world of German flying discs. You may have picked up this guide because you are unfamiliar with the German production of flying saucers during World War Two. The basics of this production will be revealed to you in the followingpages. An adventure awaits you. On the other hand, you may be looking for nothing more than a rational explanation of the UFO phenomenon. The UFO phenomenon involves sightings of unidentified flying objects. Thismeans that any unidentified flying object is a UFO, regardless of its alleged source. Because the object is unidentified, the object's source is also undetermined. Only a leap of faith can connect UFOs to an extraterrestrial course without first introducing proof. A radical hypothesis such as an extraterrestrial origin of UFOs requiresoverwhelming proof in order to be generally accepted. No suchoverwhelming extraterrestrial proof has ever been offered whichhas stood up to scrutiny. No crashed alien craft have ever beenproduced by anyone, inside or outside government. Likewise, no alien bodies have ever been found. No extraterrestrial culture, oralien technology has ever been uncovered by anyone. There is simply no actual evidence at all linking UFOs with an extraterrestrialsource. Therefore, no such leap of faith should be made. We need to start all over again. All rational earthly explanations need to be exhausted before any extraterrestrial theories are even put forth. Unfortunately, the simple truth is that, for the most part, UFO research has done a leap-frog to the extraterrestrial explanationwithout ever adequately exploring and exhausting a terrestrialorigin. This statement is inclusive of everyone regardless ofbackground or education. It applies to the charlatan UFO attentiongetters as well as to former NASA scientists with Ph.D.s. This is thecondition of our current state of affairs in the UFO world. Let me expound on this. For over fifty years, the UFO research paradigm has been fundamentally wrong. A proper attempt to explain the UFO phenomenon would involve a gathering or theevidence and then explanation by proceeding from simple solutionsinvolving known facts and conditions and totally exhausting theseas possibilities before postulating explanations, conditions, or entities not represented by fact. Only after known facts fail us can we move on to postulate explanations beyond our realm of experience.  Even then, an idea which may fit the observed facts but which is not in evidence itself cannot be accepted as fact until it is tested. Thisis nothing new. This is simply the way logic and science test new explanations of reality. This method is the foundation of our modern western technological culture. Unfortunately, research in the field of flying saucer phenomenahas never been undertaken with this principle in mind. More and more frequently, UFOs are attributed to an extraterrestrial source by the media, or the "witnesses", as a sort of knee-jerk reaction. Itseems if one sees something for which he has no prior reference, then it must be extraterrestrial as a matter of course. Over the yearssightings have become "encounters," then "abductions." Such reports are increasing even as the use of regression hypnosisreplaces the scientific method for finding the truth. The same individuals often have repeated "experiences" each of which becomes stranger than the last. If no real research has ever been done on the UFO phenomena, then how has thesis extraterrestrial theory crept into popular culture? One simple answer is the media. The media loves extraterrestrials. Why? It is because the extraterrestrial hypothesis is marketable. It sells copy. Just look at the number of books, magazines, movies and television programs devoted to this explanation. Look at your check-out counter in the supermarket. The government itself is another answer. The word "government" from here on will basically mean the government of the United States of America but will sometimes include other governments, as specified. The government has used "flying saucers" to cover itsown testing of secret aircraft. It uses the UFO-extraterrestrial ploy superbly. When a UFO is seen by civilians, a controlled procedure is enacted. This procedure plants or encourages witnesses who expound an extraterrestrial origin in a given sighting. The government may even go so far as to fund television programming and magazines devoted to this explanation. After all, a huge part of the C.I.A.'s budget goes into such covert conditioning of theAmerican people. However, Americans are not the first to be fooled, as we shall see. In most cases, any extraterrestrial hypothesis is acceptable togovernment manipulators, especially if it is so ridiculous that the witnesses end up discrediting themselves. The government is sosuccessful at this that the entire topic of UFOs has become somewhat of a joke. This is done deliberately. Thus, serious peoplewith "something to lose" are afraid to stake their reputations on a public announcement of their UFO experience, no matter how real it  may have been. At this point the government has achieved its purpose which is to discredit and suppress all serious inquiry into the UFO question. Supposedly, UFO research has been left to large, well-financed UFO 'research organizations". The largest of these is MUFON (Mutual UFO Network). This organization "trains" people to reportsightings, then collects the data and organizes it using some sort ofmulti-variant analysis into something meaningful. Over the yearsMUFON has had the opportunity to collect and "organize" thousands of sightings into something meaningful. In reality, the information is organized into gibberish. After a body of knowledge has been studied and organized, usually, certain facts or at least generalizations can be gleaned form this kind of work. In its fifty years of existence can anyone name one new fundamental fact that MUFON has provided us? They haveprovided us with nothing. Someone once said that MUFON is really a black hole into which information is attracted and does not have the power to escape on its own. We will return to MUFON and explain this reasoning at a later point. If we are to seek any real explanation of the UFO phenomenon, we must make a clean break with the past. We must go back to the basics of simplicity and logic. One basic question is this: could wehumans be capable of making the unidentified flying machines which have been seen in abundance in the sky since the Second World War? Until we answer that question in the negative, there is no reason to postulate an alien origin for UFOs. One purpose of this book is to give an individual new to thissubject an overview into the study of German flying discs. Neverfear, this is not a disjointed spook-hunt, chasing sightings and abductions. There are real facts in this field. There are real peoplewith real names and histories and there are real saucer designs. Another purpose is to give the reader references, upon whichstatements in this book are based. Given these references, thereader may then research the topics of particular interest in more detail. The research methodology is straightforward. We will listen to what is claimed about German saucers by Germans of those times or from other individuals who are in a position to know something about this topic. We then attempt to verify it using an independenthistorical source. Corroboration from other independent sources, especially from witnesses, is also acceptable and important. Photographs are important but nowadays pictures can be manufactured on a computer. Well-documented pictures which  appeared before the modern computer age are perhaps best. Also, pictures accompanied with negatives may be considered betterdocuments than those without negatives. Government documents can be great sources of confirmation. Unfortunately, governments cannot be trusted and have historically attempted to manipulate UFO research. Therefore, these sources are best not used to formulate ideas but to confirm ideas first developed through independent sources. Politically, time is on our side. Since the Berlin Wall fell, more andmore German researchers are going public with their findings. There is more freedom to research this subject now than at any time in the past sixty years. As each piece fits into the puzzle, a consensus of public acceptance acknowledging the reality of German flying discs grows. All we really have to do is find the pieces, confirm them and eep putting them together. The truth will emerge by itself and in the end nobody, no special interest of any sort, will be able to deny this basic truth. The writer of this book is not an authority to be believed upon face-value alone. New assertions made in this book about German saucers will be accompanied with documentation. Assertions made by others will be accompanied with their references. This book will briefly touch upon most of the facts, ideas, writers and researchersin this field. With the sources given, the reader will be able to confirm the veracity of the position put forth independently. In an attempt to explain the field of German saucers to someone new to it some background is necessary. First, we will discuss the situation within wartime Germany. Then, there will follow adiscussion concerning reliable sources in this field. An overview of German flying discs will follow. Finally, various trains of thought or schools or thought in this field will be presented in a discussion section along with some odds and ends which do not fit into any neat pattern. At that point, the post-war disposition of German saucer technology will be discussed before concluding with some thoughts on the topic.  A meeting of Germany's early rocket pioneers, including Rudolph Nebel at left, Hermann Oberth, to the right of the rocket, Klaus Riedel, holding the small rocket, and behind him the dapper young Wernher von Braun. After t h e rise of Hitler, von Braun found himself with a new circle of acquaintances, as w e l l as a new research facility at Peenemunde.  ¦ As the A-4 neared completion, the SS maneuvered to take control of the weapon from the German Army. Below, an obviously impressed Heinrich Himmler, standing next to Walter Dornberger, makes his first visit to Peenemiinde in April 1943.  A vast factory complex called the Mittelwerk was constructed in the Harz Mountains to conceal and protect rocket production from Allied bombers. Below, a view of one of the underground galleries.  Allied intelligence was able to identify the "ski sites" originally designed to launch the V-1. While Operation Crossbow unleashed thousands of bombers against the sites, the Germans meanwhile switched to more flexible, and inconspicuous, launch methods. The gigantic V-2 storage bunker at Wizernes, France after absorbing 14 Allied air attacks. Today the bunker is a museum run by the French government called La Coupole. It contains originals of the V-l and V-2 and also celebrates space travel.  Carefully considered German camouflage schemes were designed to conceal the weapons among trees.  CHAPTER ONE: THE SITUATION WITHIN NAZI GERMANY  CHAPTER ONE The Situation Within Nazi Germany Thanks to the American media and what passes for history, mostAmericans have no idea of wartime conditions within Germany. The topics most germane to this discussion are the means of wartimeindustrial production and transportation within Germany. After the Battle of Britain, Germany's air domination over Europebegan to decline, sliding down a slippery slope which ultimatelyresulted in one major reason for its defeat. German means of industrial, arms, and energy production became increasingvenerable to attack by Allied bombers. The munitions plantsneeded to produce the arms to maintain the war effort, such as tanks, airplanes and cannons were all targets of Allied airbombardment. Likewise, high priority targets included oil production and refining facilities which produced the fuel andlubricants needed to make the war effort possible. One way Germany responded to air attacks was by moving munitionsfacilities and high-value industrial plants underground (1). Some of these facilities were vast, encompassing miles of underground tunnels. They housed both the industrial means ofwar production and the workers themselves. The facilities atNordhausen in Thuringia are well known as the site of productionfor the V-l and V-2, but there were others. The newly discovered underground complexes of the Jonas Valley south of Nordhausen inThuringia constitute another vast complex (2)(3). This facilitywas to serve as a center of government and most probably aresearch center for advanced weaponry. This is also true for the many underground complexes in what is now Poland. Notable amongthese is a facility called "Der Riese" (The Giant). Der Rieseserved as a uranium mine, uranium processing facility, andresearch and development facility for secret weapons (4). Underground facilities for weapons production were foundthroughout Germany, Austria, Czechoslovakia and Poland. Underground production facilities were also set up to refinesynthetic petroleum products from coal and to generate electricity. In addition to underground facilities, camouflage was used tohide numerous smaller facilities. These many camouflaged andunderground plants formed a web of sub-assembly producers. Each sub-assembly facility sent their product to a larger or a more centrally located facility for further work. From there it mightbe transported again for final assembly. As an example, type XXI U-boats were modular, being produced in pipe-like sectionsthroughout Germany. They were transported by rail to sites nearthe North Sea and only finally assembled at water's edge. Likewise, some types of aircraft were only finally assembled nearthe runway. 13  Further confusing Allied air intelligence, the plants were constantly moving. Eventually everything of value was to bemoved underground, to bomb-proof shelters. Facilities were kept on the move until space was available for this underground relocation. These tactics worked for the Germans. There were simply too many moving targets for the Allies to completely stop German war production. Of course the weak link in this scheme was transportation. Therailroad system was the only practical and most energy efficientmethod of moving all these sub-assemblies. Trucking material wasdone but in a petroleum-starved Third Reich, it was not possibleto sustain a truck-based transportation system necessary to meetall the requirements of wartime Germany. Recognizing this, theAllies bombed railroad centers using the heavy, four-engine B-17bombers. By mid-1943 the American P-51 Mustang was introduced into thefield of play. This aircraft could be thought of as a Spitfire which could fly for eight hours. Its range allowed it to escortAllied bombers to their targets throughout the Reich. Afterescorting the bombers to their targets the P-51s were released toattack "targets of opportunity". A P-51 can fly close to the ground and attack individual trains, which they did. Perhaps youwill recall the many wartime film clips showing these P-51sdestroying German trains as they traveled. By mid-1944, it is awonder that any trains within Germany could move at all. Some were forced to hide in mountain tunnels, as they did near the Jonas Valley, running at night or when there were no enemy aircraft reported. As a result of these day and night air attacks, Germany founditself increasingly the victim of shortages of material and fuel, limiting its ability to make war. Though Germany's air defence system was the best of anywarring nation, it was clear that if Germany was to survive, improvement was imperative. Germany experimented with radicallynew types of air defense systems. Anti-aircraft rockets, guidedboth from the ground and by infra-red homing devices were invented. Vortex cannons, sun cannons, air-explosive turbulencebombs, rockets trailing long wire to ensnare enemy propellers, numerous electronic jamming devices, electronic devices designed to stop ignition-based engines, magnetically repulsed projectilesand long-range x-ray "death rays" were all under development asthe conflict ended (5) (6). Among these exotic solutions weresaucer-shaped interceptor aircraft. The Germans already had jet and rocket interceptors as well as jet and rocket attack vehicles. German skies were full of theseand other exotic aircraft so this new saucer shape was notconsidered as important then as we do today looking back upon itfrom a UFO perspective. To the German military and civiliansalike these were just more new weapons. 14  The "Alpenfestung" From top to bottom, right to left are: The "Alpenfestung" which was the southernmost island of defense planned by theGermans; Diagram of the Fiat underground facility at Lake Garda in Northern Italy which worked under direction of theGermans; A cross section of the tunnel. It was in this facility where Renato Vesco worked during the Second World War. 15  As the conflict drew to its conclusion, military planners inGermany considered the idea of concentrating their ground and air defenses into specific fortresses for a last stand. This wouldbuy them time. They needed time to perfect new "Siegerswaffen", super-weapons so powerful that they could turn the course of thewar for Germany by themselves. A mountain fortress or "Alpenfestung" was to be set up in theGerman held areas of Northern Italy, Austria and Germany inroughly the areas in which these countries converged with each other and Switzerland (7). A fortress was to be set up in the Harz Mountains of Thruingia including several large undergroundcomplexes. This would extend from Nordhausen in the north downthrough Kahla and into the Jonas Valley. Another similarfortress complex was scheduled for the Owl Mountains separatingPoland from Czechoslovakia including "Der Riese" mentioned earlier (8). Another fortress was to be set up in the Black Forest of Southern Germany. Other minor islands of resistancewere to be set up in Norway, the Bohemian forest and the Bavarianforest (9). These fortifications were to house soldiers, mostly SS units. They would also provide underground hangers and bomb-proofoverhangs for aircraft take-offs and landings. Missiles, such asthe V-l and V-2, and other weapons were to be mass produced thereand fired automatically, right off the automated assembly line. The exotic weaponry mentioned above was to be employed, along with especially trained mountain troops, defending the mountainpasses into these fortresses (10). History tells us the Alpenfestung never actually happened. Itdid not happen because German construction was simply not able tomake these places ready in time. What is important for us torealize is that the weaponry for these fortresses was beingdeveloped as the Second World War drew to a close. Few of theseweapons reached the operational stage but many were in variousstages of development. When Hitler took power in 1933 one of his first decisions was torebuild the German Air Force, the Luftwaffe. This new organization was to make a clean break with the old and thisreasoning was reflected in its research and development facilities, the RLM, which were the finest of any branch of theGerman military. Two brilliant research facilities were also inthe possession of the Luftwaffe, the Lilenthalgesellschaft andthe Academy of Air Research. Besides the Luftwaffe, there wasthe Army which did develop such things as the V-l cruise missile. There was the Speer Ministry of Arms which did research. In addition, a system of research and development facilities was setup headed by a research council, the "Reichsforschungrat". Theirjob was to coordinate the technical schools and universities, themilitary and governmental research groups, and the research anddevelopment facilities into a concerted effort (11). 16  The Underground Complex "Der Riese" "Der Riese", ("The Giant" in English), is located in the"Gory Sowie" or Owl Mountains of modern-day Poland. It consisted of seven undergound complexes which concernedthemselves with the mining, refining, research and development of uranium both for energy producing machines and weapons of war. The tunnels of the larger complexes arealmost two miles in length. Courtesy of Robert Lesniakiewicz. Mr. Lesniakiewicz is a Polish engineer and amember of the research group responsible for opening, exploring and maping of "Der Riese".  Another fact that influences our story was the ascendance of theSS (Schutz Staffel). The SS began simply as Hitler's body guard. From humble beginnings it was transformed into the most powerfulentity within the Third Reich after Hitler himself. The military arm of the SS, the Waffen SS, became the most elite militaryforce in Germany. The SS also took over many research, development and production facilities from the Army and Air Force. The SS took over control of civilian research and development facilities. The SS began taking facilities and poweraway from Albert Speer's Ministry of Arms and the RLM headed byHermann Goering. As the war progressed, the SS organized, builtand ran many underground manufacturing facilities (12). Theyeven appropriated the huge industrial firm, the Skoda Works, its subsidiaries and related firms, centered near Prague, for their in-house projects (13). The SS became an empire within an empire answerable only to Adolf Hitler. The SS also set up special research facilities for politicallyunreliable scientists. Research projects arose within these facilities which were in part staffed by technical people drawnfrom the prisoner pool. Such facilities were set up atOraneinburg, Nordhausen, Mechlenburg and Mathausen (14). As the SS rose within Germany, so did the fortunes of Doctor ofEngineering, General Hans Kammler. Kammler seems to come intoprominence through his talent at designing and building massive underground facilities (15). Soon Kammler was placed, by Hitler, in charge of V-weapons (Vergeltungswaffen). This means Kammlerwas in charge of the facilities at Peenemuende and Nordhausen. He was Dr. and General Walhter Dornberger's boss who, in turn wasDr. Wernher von Braun's boss. Further, Kammler headed up anadvanced research and development group, associated with the Skoda Works, called the Kammler Group (16). This group held themost advanced technical secrets of the Third Reich. During post-war questioning, when asked for details concerning Vweaponry, Albert Speer told Allied interrogators to ask Kammlerthese questions (17). They never did, however, because the 42 year old General Kammler had disappeared. Kammler was no fool. Wherever he went he undoubtedly took copies of the most advancedGerman technology. Numerous countries would have dealt withKammler, regardless of his past. This includes the U.S.A. Couple this with the fact that no search was ever made for General Kammler in spite of the fact that he extensively employedslave-labor in his projects. Did Kammler do a secret deal with an Allied government, exchanging information for a new identity? Or did Kammler escape Allied clutches to some safe haven such as South America? It is known that the Nazis set up shop in large, secure tracts of landbetween Chile and Argentina. It is also known that UFOs wereseen earlier in that region than in the USA after the war. Manypost-war stories involve German scientists relocating in SouthAmerican countries formerly friendly to the 18  Nazis and there building and flying German saucers. CHAPTER ONE The Situation Within Nazi Germany Sources and References 1. Vesco, Renato, 1976, Intercept UFO, pages 90-110, Pinnacle Books, 275 Madison Ave, N.Y., NY. 10016 Reissued as Man-Made UFOs 1944-1994 by Adventures Unlimited Publishing, P.O. Box 74, Kempton, Illinois 60946 2. Zunneck, Karl-Heinz, 1998, Geheimtechnologien. Wunderwaffen Und Irdischen Facetten Des UFO-Phaenomens 50 Jahre Desinformation und die Folqen. CTT-Verlag, Suhl, Germany 3. Faeth, Harald, 1998, 1945 - Thuerinqens Manhattan Project Auf der Spuerensuche nach der verlorenen V-Waffen-Fabrik inDeutschlands Unterarundr CTT-Verlag, Heinrich-Jung- Verlagsgesellschaft mbH, Suhl, Germany 4. Jesensky, Milos, Ph.D. and Robert Lesniakiewicz, 1998, "Wunderland" Mimozemske Technoloaie Treti Rise. AOS Publishing, 1 Vydani 5. Lusar, Rudolf, 1960, German Secret Weapons Of The SecondWorld War. Neville Spearman, London, England 6. German Research Project, 1999, "German Death Rays Part Two: The German And American Governmental Evidence", GermanResearch Project, P.O. Box 7, Gorman, CA. 93243-0007, USA 7. Vesco, Renato, 1976, pages 95-98 8. Jesensky, Milos, Ph.D. and Robert Lesniakiewicz, 1998, page37 9. Vesco, Renato, 1976, page 106 10. ibid, pages 90-111 11. Combined Intelligence Objectives Subcommittee EvaluationReport 20, Planning Board Of Reich Research Council 12. Vesco, Renato, 1976, pages 90-93 13. Agoston, Tom, 1985, Blunder! How the U.S. Gave Awav Nazi Supersecrets To Russia , pages 12-15, Dodd, Mead & Company, New York 14. British Intelligence Objectives Sub-Committee, Report Number 19  142, Information Obtained From Targets Of Opportunity In The Sonthofen Area, pages 1 and 3 15. Vesco, Renato, 1976, pages 93-95 16. Agoston, Tom, 1985, page 13 17. Combined Intelligence Objectives Subcommittee EvaluationReport Number 53(b), Interrogation of Albert Speer, Former Reich Minister of Armaments, page 3 Some of the earliest forms of UFOs, reported during the 1940s, were the ball of light phenomena known as 'foo fighters,' as depicted here. 20  Above: Few photos of foo fighters are currently known. The top photo is one of the most famous, taken over Europe; the bottom was taken over the Sea of Japan between Japan and Korea in 1943.  Above: Rare photos allegedly of an early experimental saucer at the Peenemuende Space Center.  Above: Internal plans for a "Vril-1" saucer, according to Polish historian Igor Witkowski.  Patent for the Coler Converter, a free energy device designed by Hans Coler in 1937.  A C.I.A. document dated August 18, 1952 mentioning that the Germans were building "flying saucers" as early as 1941. From the German book Die Dunkle Seite Des Mondes (The Dark Side of theMoon) by Brad Harris (1996, Pandora Books, Germany).  CHAPTER TWO: RELIABLE SOURCES  CHAPTER TWO Reliable Sources Much has recently been written concerning German flying discs. To the best of my knowledge, no single source has all theanswers. To piece this puzzle together information from varioussources must be used. Of course, some sources are better than others. Categories of sources, in a somewhat descending order of reliability are: 1. Those actually involved with these projects. 2. Witnesses of flying saucers who had prior knowledge that the sighting was of a German saucer as opposed to an unidentifiedflying object. 3. Those who at the time had good reason to know of Germansaucers. 4. Third-party intelligence sources which verify claims made bythe higher categories above. 5. Researchers who have interviewed principals involved inGerman saucer research. 6. Studies or scientific papers published by individualsidentified as participants in these projects. Sources without names are not as good as sources with names. Information, data, or pictures without a "chain of evidence" linking them to the event are not as good as those with proper documentation. After almost sixty years, nothing is going to be perfect. Thesecategories are not meant to be absolute. Some sources fit intomultiple categories. Some reports have value even though theyare not rigorous simply because they were later corroborated byother sources. When reading allegedly factual statements, the reader should always be looking for the source documentation for these statements. A writer's opinion or interpretation may be valuablebut it should always be made clear which is who. Examples of the first category are those who worked on Germansaucer projects: Among these is Rudolf Schriever. Schriever was involved in aGerman saucers project which sometimes bears his name. As asource of information, he wrote an article on German saucers forthe very respected Der Spiegel magazine (1). 29  Likewise, Joseph Andreas Epp was a self-admitted consultant forboth the Schriever-Habermohl project at Prag and the Mietheproject in Dresden and Breslau. Mr. Epp wrote to me personally (2) and has written several articles and a book about Germansaucers before he died in 1997 (3). An example of a witness who had prior knowledge of German saucerswould be Georg Klein. Klein was an engineer, an eyewitness to asaucer lift-off on February 14, 1945. He was also SpecialCommissioner in the Ministry of Arms Production who oversaw both the Schriever-Habermohl and Miethe-Belluzzo projects for AlbertSpeer. Mr. Klein has written some newspaper articles about these facts such as his article in Welt am Stonntag, titled "Erste"Flugscheibe" flog 1945 in Prag" (The First Flying Disc flew inPrag in 1945)(4) . Other newspaper references of Mr. Klein willbe mentioned. He has also written under the pen-name of GeorgSautier. Another example would be the unnamed eyewitness provided byresearcher Horst Schuppmann and first reported in Karl-Heinz Zunneck's book Geheimtechnoloaien. Wunderwaffen Und Irdischen Facetten Des UFO-Phaenomens (Secret Technology, Wonder-weaponsand the Terrestrial Facts of the UFO Phenomenon). In this report the informant relates a wartime experience in which he witnessed several small flying saucers in a hangar (5). George Lusar is an example of a source falling under categorythree. Lusar worked for the German Patent Office during WorldWar Two. He saw many secret patents as they came into hisoffice. After the War he wrote a book and some articles concerning this technology which was taken by the Allies (6). Likewise, Italian engineer Renato Vesco worked with Germans while at a secret division of Fiat housed in an underground facility onLake Garda, right in the middle of the proposed Alpenfestung. After the war, Vesco also researched British Intelligence data. This data was volumnous. Of course, Vesco knew what to look forbased upon what he had learned while working in a secret Axisunderground facility. Vesco is an example of category three andthe next one, category four. Category four involves intelligence information obtained fromgovernmental sources. This information mostly comes from the very entities who are trying to suppress this information. It should always be suspect. It should be used only to verifyinformation obtained from higher sources (categories 1 through 3) or from governmental sources of another government. For instance, information concerning flying objects which Renato Vesco called "Fireballs" was verified using information obtainedfrom the U.S. government under laws forcing it to divulge sometypes of information (Freedom Of Information Act) (7). Category five would include, for instance, Callum Coats whomspent three years with mathematician and physicist, Walter 30  Schauberger, son of Viktor Schauberger. Mr. Coats consequently learned a great deal of information concerning the ideas ofViktor Schauberger. Mr. Coats is a scientist and architect. Coats wrote Living Energies about the ideas of Schauberger and his saucer models (8). In the same category we find Michael X. Barton, who, through atranslator, Carl F. Mayer, received information from an informant in German, Hermann Klaas, who claimed to have actually beeninvolved with some of the German saucer projects. Klaas' peripheral knowledge (category three) also seems to have extendedinto other aspects of secret German research and technology. Barton wrote one of the earliest books on this topic, The German Saucer Story in 1968 (9). One unique source is Wilhelm Landig. Landig wrote three novels dealing with the Second World War. Following the title of each novel, Landig tells the reader that this is a "novel based onrealities". The reader is given to understand that thetechnology described was based on hard fact. Landig's works contain more than cold facts, however. Landig deals with a largevariety of topics in his books. Sometimes facts or opinions are stated or "stories behind the story" are told. He writes, unashamedly, from the National Socialist perspective. Landig was obviously a Nazi and an intellectual insider. His history always remained unclear, at least to this writer, until his recentdeath. Because of his unclear background and the fact that hewrote in novel form, there has been a reluctance to ascribe full creditability to the statements he makes regarding the technology of the Third Reich. This all changed in 1999 as a result of research done by Margret Chatwin with an organization called "Informations diesnst gegen Rechtsextremismus" (Information service against the extreme right) (10). Coming in from this perspective, they, certainly, would not be accused of aggrandizing Landig's career. Somedetails of Landig's biography are now filled in. In that article we learn that Landig, an Austrian, took part in the unsuccessfulVienna Putsch of 1934. Thereafter, he fled to Germany and wasinducted into the SD, the SS and the Waffen SS. There he rose tothe rank of "Oberschafuehrer". Eventually, Landig was detailedto oversee government security concerns and given a position in theReichs Security Department. Landig, in this position, wasassigned to cover the security for the development of "UFOs" (11). It turns out that Landig was not only a source but a greatsource concerning the development of German saucers. Returning to unnamed sources, they should never be given theweight as named sources are given. Many times writers use unnamed sources to advance a radically new and fantastichypothesis in the UFO world. This type of source may sound convincing, given the "secret" nature of the message, but theyshould only be accepted if they yield new information which canbe verified independently. This goes double for unnamed 31  government sources. Government has a history of manipulation ofinformation concerning UFOs and UFO origin theories. One of themost famous was the Majestic 12 or MJ 12 affair which was basedon unnamed government sources. This house of card finally fell apart but the real issue before us is why this house of cards, the MJ-12 affair, was ever allowed so much attention in the firstplace. Government information should, therefore, never be used as theprimary basis for a UFO hypothesis. It should only be used toverify a hypothesis developed, ideally, from multiple, independent sources. Concerning German saucers,this means thatinformation or ideas from German sources might be checked using U.S. or British governmental archives, but not the reverse. Similar assertions given by official records of two differentcountries is notable. If both United States and British or German governmental sources agree upon something, then somethingmight be said of the assertion. Of course there are those thatsay this only points to a conspiracy between the two governmentsto conceal a deeper truth. This may be true in some cases. These are all really judgment calls which the reader will have tomake for himself, in the end. Regarding individual sources cited, an effort will be made todescribe the type of evidence each cited reference uses when that information is available. CHAPTER TWO Reliable Sources Sources and References 1. Der Spiegel, March 30, 1959, Article and interview of Rudolf Schriever 2. Epp, Joseph Andreas, telephone communication and personal letters 3. Epp, Joseph Andreas, 1994, Die Realitaet der Flugscheiben Ein Leben fuer eine Idee, EFODON e. V., c/o Gernot L. Geise, Zoepfstrasse 8, D-82405 Wessobrunn, Germany 4. Klein, Georg, in Welt Am Sontag, 4/26/53, "Erste FlugscheibeFlog 1945 in Prag 5. Zunneck, Karl-Heinz, 1998, pages 120-122 6. Lusar, Rudolf, 1960, German Secret Weapons Of The SecondWorld War, Neville Spearman, London 7. Headquarters, United States Strategic Air Forces In Europe, 32  Office Of The Director Of Intelligence, 1944, report titled: "An Evaluation Of German Capabilities In 1945" 8. Coats, Callum, 1996, Living Energies. National Book Network, 4720 Boston Way, Lanham, MD. 20706 9. Barton, Michael X., 1968, The German Saucer Story. Futura Press, 5949 Gregory Ave., Los Angeles, CA. 90038 10. Chatwin, Margret, 1999, page 1, Ahnenerbe, Ufos, Neonazis: Wilhelm Landig, Informationsdienst gegen Rechtsextremismus, http://www.idgr.de/texte-1/esoterik/landig/landig. html 11. ibid 33  A September, 1946 Top Secret Memorandum on Ghost Rockets.  The above photo, showing six saucers in formation, was given to Dr. J. Allen Hynek in the early 1950s by the director of the Ondrejov Observatory in Czechoslovakia. No details of the sighting are available, but the photo is thoughtto have been taken near Prague, perhaps during WWII.  Above: Drawings of the Project Saucer craft designed in 1941 by Rudolf Schriever, a Luftwaffe aeronautical engineer, and his three colleagues, Habermohl, Miethe and Bellonzo. The first prototype was flown in June 1942 and larger versions were apparently designed and manufactured at the BMW factory near Prague, Czech Republic.  Above: The circular "Mucholapka" building in Poland. According to Polish Military Historian Igor Witkowski it was used for testing saucer-type craft.  CHAPTER THREE: AN OVERVIEW OF THE GERMAN CONVENTIONAL SAUCER PROJECTS THE SCHREIVER-HABERMOHL PROJECT(S) THE MIETHE-BELLUZZO PROJECT FOO FIGHTERS THE PEENEMUENDE SAUCER PROJECT CHAPTER SUMMARY  CHAPTER THREE An Overview of the German Conventional Saucer Projects In this section we will progress from saucer projects with areabsolutely factual and of which detail is known and proceed toprojects which are less known. Several types of flying craft we would call flying saucers werebuilt by the Germans during the Second World War. The exactnumber is still open for debate but it certainly must vary frombetween three to seven or possibly eight different types. Thesedifferent types do not mean experimental models or variants ofwhich there were many. What is meant here is that there were very different lines of flying machines being built in wartimeGermany at different places by different groups of people. Since more than one saucer-type may have been produced by a singlegroup, we will review this data group by group. We will progressfrom saucer projects which are factually better known and whichdeal in conventional propulsion methods and then move to lesserknown projects which deal in more exotic propulsion methods which are less well documented and so more controversial. 41  The Schriever-Habermohl Project(s) The best known of these projects is usually referred to as theSchriever-Habermohl project although it is by no means clear that these were the individuals in charge of the project. RudolfSchriever was an engineer and test pilot. Less is known aboutOtto Habermohl but certainly he was an engineer. This projectwas centered in Prag, at the Prag-Gbell airport (l)(2). Actualconstruction work began somewhere between 1941 and 1943 (3)(4). This was originally a Luftwaffe project which received technical assistance from the Skoda Works at Prag and at a Skoda divisionat Letov (5) and perhaps elsewhere (6). Other firmsparticipating in the project according to Epp were the Junkersfirm at Oscheben and Bemburg, the Wilhelm Gustloff firm at Weimarand the Kieler Leichtbau at Neubrandenburg (7). This projectstarted as a project of the Luftwaffe, sponsored by second-incommand, Ernst Udet. It then fell under the control of Speer'sArmament Ministry at which time it was administered by engineerGeorg Klein. Finally, probably sometime in 1944, this projectcame under the control of the SS, specifically under the purviewof General Hans Kammler (8). According to his own words, Georg Klein saw this device fly onFebruary 14, 1945 (9). This may have been the first official flight, but it was not the first flight made by this device. According to one witness, a saucer flight occurred as early asAugust or September of 1943 at this facility. The eyewitness wasin flight-training at the Prag-Gbell facility when he saw a shorttest flight of such a device. He states that the saucer was 5 to6 meters in diameter (about 15 to 18 feet in diameter) and about as tall as a man, with an outer border of 30-40 centimeters. Itwas "aluminum" in color and rested on four thin, long legs. The flight distance observed was about 300 meters at low level of one meter in altitude. The witness was 200 meters from the event and one of many students there at the time (10). Joseph Andreas Epp, an engineer who served as a consultant toboth the Schriever-Habermohl and the Miethe-Belluzzo projects, states that fifteen prototypes were built in all (11) (12). Thefinal device associated with Schriever-Habermohl is described byengineer Rudolf Lusar who worked in the German Patent Office, as a central cockpit surrounded by rotating adjustable wing-vanesforming a circle. The vanes were held together by a band at theouter edge of the wheel-like device. The pitch of the vanescould be adjusted so that during take off more lift was generatedby increasing their angle from a more horizontal setting. Inlevel flight the angle would be adjusted to a smaller angle. This is similar to the way helicopter rotors operate. The wingvanes were to be set in rotation by small rockets placed aroundthe rim like a pinwheel. Once rotational speed was sufficient, lift-off was achieved. After the craft had risen to some height the horizontal jets or rockets were ignited and the small rockets shut off (13). After this the wing-blades would be allowed to 42  The Airport at Prag-Gbell Site of the Schriever and Habermohl Flying Saucer Projects In the top diagram the hanger which was the site of the research is marked as number 2. The same hanger is indicated in the picture below with an arrow. 43  The Habermohl Saucer In Flight To the left is the closest shot of the two taken by Joseph Andreas Epp as he drove to the Prag airport in 1944. To the right is a blow up (400 times) of that same saucer. Epp remembers a date of November, 1944 but the foliage on the trees argues for a date earlier in the year.  rotate freely as the saucer moved forward as in an autogyrocopter. In all probability, the wing-blades speed, and sotheir lifting value, could also be increased by directing theadjustable horizontal jets slightly upwards to engage the blades, thus spinning them faster at the digression of the pilot. Rapid horizontal flight was possible with these jet or rocket engines. Probable candidates were the Junkers Jumo 004 jet engines such as were used on the famous German jet fighter, the Messerschmitt 262. A possible substitute would have been thesomewhat less powerful BMW 003 engines. The rocket engine would have been the Walter HWK109 which powered the Messerschmitt 163 rocket interceptor (14). If all had been plentiful, the Junkers Jumo 004 probably would have been the first choice. Epp reports Jumo 211/b engines were used (15). Klaas reports the Argus pulse jet (Schmidt-duct), used on the V-l, was also considered (16). All of these types of engines were difficult to obtain at the time because they were needed for high priority fighters and bombers, the V-l and the rocket interceptor aircraft. Joseph Andreas Epp reports in his book Die Realitaet der Flugscheiben (The Reality of the Flying Discs) that an official test flight occurred in February of 1945. Epp managed to taketwo still pictures of the saucer in flight which appear in hisbook and are reproduced here. There is some confusion about the date of these pictures. In the video film "UFOs Secrets of the3rd Reich", Epp states these pictures were taken in the Fall of1944. In his book the date is given as the official date ofFebruary 14, 1945. In personal correspondence to me of December, 30, 1991, he indicated the date of the pictures as August, 1944. In that correspondence he further revealed that the officialflight had been February 14, 1945 but an earlier lift-off had taken place in August of 1944. The pictures show a small disclike object in the distance at some altitude posed above a landscape. The saucer is at too great a distance and altitude toshow any mechanical detail. As Klaus-Peter Rothkugel points out, the foliage on the trees indicates the August date as being themost accurate. Very high performance flight characteristics are attributed tothis design. Georg Klein says it climbed to 12,400 meters (over37,000 feet) in three minutes (17) and attaining a speed aroundthat of the sound barrier (18). Epp says that it achieved aspeed of Mach 1 (about 1200 kilometers per hour or about 750miles per hour) (19). From his discussion, it appears that Epp is describing the unofficial lift-off in August, 1944 at thispoint. He goes on to say that on the next night, the soundbarrier was broken in manned flight but that the pilot was frightened by the vibrations encountered at that time (20). On the official test flight, Epp reports a top speed of 2200 kilometers per hour (21). Lusar reports a top speed of 2000kilometers per hour (22). Many other writers cite the same or similar top speed. There is no doubt of two facts. The first isthat these are supersonic speeds which are being discussed. 45  Second, it is a manned flight which is under discussion. But at least one writer has discounted such high performance(23). It is argued that the large frontal area of one of thepossible designs in question makes Mach 2 flight impossible. Theargument seems to be that given the possible power plants theatmospheric resistance caused by this frontal area would slow the craft to a point below the figures stated earlier. Some new information has come to light regarding the propulsion system which supports the original assessment. Although actualconstruction had not started, wind-tunnel and design studies confirmed the feasibility of building a research aircraft whichwas designated Project 8-346. This aircraft was not a saucer buta modern looking swept-back wing design. According this post-warAllied intelligence report, the Germans designed the 8-346 to flyin the range of 2000 kilometers per hour to Mach 2. (24). Interestingly enough, it was to use two Walther HWK109 rocketengines. This is one of the engine configurations underconsideration for the Schriever-Habermohl saucer project. As an aside, it should be noted that there are those who willresist at any attempt to impugn the official breaking of thesound barrier by Chuck Yeager in 1947 in the Bell X-l rocketaircraft. They had better brace themselves. This record hasalso been challenged from another direction. This challenge was reported in February, 2001, by the Associated Press, Berlin. It seems that a certain Hans Guido Mutke claims he pushed hisMesserschmitt jet fighter, the Me-262, through the sound barrier in 1945. This occurred during an emergency dive to help anotherGerman flyer during air combat. At that time he experiencedvibrations and shaking of the aircraft. According to the report, a Hamburg Professor is working on a computer simulation in order to check the validity of this claim. Returning to the topic at hand, Schriever continued to work onthe project until April 15, 1945. About this time Prag wasthreatened by the Soviet Army. The Czech technicians working onthis project were reported to have gone amuck, looting thefacility as the Russians approached. The saucer prototype(s) atPrag-Gbell were pushed out onto the tarmac and burnt. Habermohldisappeared and presumably ended up in the hands of the Soviets. Schriever, according to his own statements, packed the saucerplans in the trunk of his BMW and with his family drove intoSouthern Germany. After cessation of hostilities Schriever worked his way north to his parents house in Bremerhaven-Lehe. There Schriever set up an inventor-workshop. On August 4, 1948there was a break in to the workshop in which Schriever's plansand saucer model were stolen (25). Schriever was approached byagents of "foreign powers" concerning his knowledge of Germansaucers. He declined their offers, preferring rather menial work driving a truck for the U.S. Army (25). Schriever is reported to have died shortly thereafter in 1953. 46  There is a report, however, that his death was reported prematurely and that he was identified by a witness who knew him inBavaria in 1964 or 1965 (26). The publisher of this book, Thomas Mehner, was so kind as to send me a copy of the statement by aBavarian woman who knew Schriever and made this claim (27). Thismeans that there is a possibility that Schriever did do post-war work on flying saucers. Interestingly enough, Schriever never claimed that his saucer ever flew at all! If this true, Schriever's saucer was still inthe pre-flight stage at the time of the Russian advance and itsultimate destruction on the Prag-Gbell tarmac. This is in directcontradiction to the sources cited above and the photographic evidence. How can this seeming inconsistency be explained? J. Andeas Epp has always maintained that it was he who originatedthe type of design used in the Schriever-Habermohl project (28). He states in his book that the imbalance in the ring of wing- vanes which plagued the early Schriever-Habermohl prototypes was a deviation from his original design in which the wing-vanes were lengthened. He states that when they returned to his original design, the saucer was able to take off (29) (30). He referredto the saucer used in the August, 1944 unofficial lift-off, thesaucer whose wing-vanes had been altered and then correctedthrough his intervention, as the "Habermohlischen Version", theHabermohl version (31). Could the discrepancy referred to above be accounted for if therewere actually two lines of saucers built by Schriever and Habermohl? In other words, could the Schriever-Habermohl project have actually been a Schriever project and a Habermohl project, two separate designs within the team? Georg Klein seems toanswer this question, stating that "three constructions" whichwere finished at Prag by the end of 1944. One of these, he says, was a design by Dr. Miethe (32). The best interpretation of thewords of both Epp and Klein would indicate that both Schriever and Habermohl each produced their own design. Schriever made noclaim that his design flew. Epp claims the Habermohl design didfly in August, 1944 and again in February 14, 1945. This was thesaucer witnessed by both Klein and Epp in flight. Therefore, the history of the Schriever-Habermohl project in Prag can be summarized in a nutshell as follows: Epp's statement isthat it was his design and model which formed the basis for thisproject. This model was given to General Erst Udet which wasthen forwarded to Dr. Walter Dornberger at Peenemuende. Dr. Dornberger tested and recommended the design (33) which wasconfirmed by Dornberger to Epp after the war (34). A facility was set up in Prag for further development and the Schriever- Habermohl team was assigned to work on it there. At first this project was under the auspices of Hermann Goering and the Luftwaffe (35). Sometime later the Speer Ministry took over the running of this project with chief engineer Georg Klein in charge(36). Finally, the project was usurped by the SS in 1944, along 47  A Comparison of the Schriever and Habermohl Designs On the left is the Schriever design while on the right isthe Habermohl design. Please note the differing dimensions of the vane blades. This difference caused instability inthe Schriever design. Drawings adapted from the work of Klaus-Peter Rothkugel. 48  with other saucer projects, and fell under the purview of Dr. Hans Kammler (37). Schriever altered the length of the wing-vanesfrom their original design. This alteration caused the instability. Schriever was still trying to work out this problemin his version of the saucer as the Russians overran Prag. Haberrmohl, according to Epp, went back to his originalspecifications, with two or three successful flights for hisversion. While speaking of flight success, two more pieces of importantevidence exists which were supplied by Andreas Epp. One comes inthe form of a statement by a German test pilot, Otto Lange, given years after the war to Andreas Epp. In that statement, signed byLange, Epp is credited with the idea behind the invention of theflying saucer and states that none other than Dr. Walter Dornberger had a hand in its development. He also makes the astonishing claim that he, personally, test flew this flyingsaucer for 500 kilometers in the course of testing (38) (39). otto Lange is a person who is known historically andindependently of any connection to Epp. Lange is mentioned in U.S. intelligence documents as a member of the "Rustungsstab" (Armament Staff), for aircraft (40). This is some confusion on this issue since a German researcher, Klaus-Peter Rothkugel, hasf ound evidence for three individuals with this name serving inthe German military at this time. Mr. Rothkugel, has suggested that the statement by Lange, discussed above, was, in fact, written by Epp based on known examples of Epp's hand writing. Itwas signed by another hand, so perhaps Epp and Lange had a chancemeeting in 1965 wherein the letter was drafted by Epp in aneffort to further document his, at that time, little-acknowledgedinvolvement in the German saucer projects. The second piece of evidence, also supplied by Epp, is a wartimeLetter from Prag, dated March, 1944. It speaks to the conditions behind German lines with its opening greeting, simply "StillAlive!". It follows in a cryptic style describing historicallywell known political and military people who apparently knew orhad something to do with the saucer project at Prag. The letteralso describes some early prototype saucer models and theirshortcomings. Interestingly enough figures on thrust are given (40) (41). Three pictures appear at the bottom of the letter. One definitely shows a saucer in flight. There is no mention ofthese pictures in the text of the letter. Because they are not referenced and from their placement on the face of the letter itis possible that these pictures may have been a later addition tothat letter. There are some other reasons why these pictures maynot have been connected to the Schriever-Habermohl project or theMiethe-Belluzzo project. We shall return to these pictures at a later time. An interesting fact elucidated by Epp is that the senior experts 49  Cryptic And Enigmatic Letter Describes Flying Disc Development On the left is the original letter sent to the author byAndreas Epp. On the right is a typed version done by Kadmon. Notes in English are directed to the author. The letter starts without any formal or Informal greeting, stating only "Still alive". Flying disc research "sehr gut" with vertical take-off at speeds of 860-880 per hour (525-550 milesper hour). 50  Flying Disc Test Pilot Otto Lange Original and author's translation of letter signed by Lange acknowledging Epp's role in flying disc history 51  and advisors for both the Schriever-Habermohl project and the next project to be discussed, the Miethe-Belluzzo project, wereexactly the same individuals (43). The Schriever-Habermohl Project(s) Sources and References 1. Meier, Hans Justus, 1999, page 24, "Zum Thema "FliegendeUntertassen" Der Habermohlsche Flugkreisel", reprinted inFliegerkalender 1999, Internationales Jahrbuch de Luft-und Raumfahrt, Publisher: Hans M. Namislo, ISBN 3-8132-0553-3 2. Lusar, Rudolf, 1964, page 220, Die Deutschen Waffen undGeheimwaffen des 2. Weltkrieges und ihre Weiterentwicklung, J.F. Lemanns Verlag, Munich 3. Lusar, 1964, ibid 4. Epp, Joseph Andreas, 1994, page 28, Die Realitaet derFlugscheiben, Efodon e.V., c/o Gernot L. Geise, Zoepfstrasse 8, D-82495 5. Epp, 1994, ibid 6. Rothkugel, Klaus-Peter, in personal letters a witness has reported to Mr. Rothkugel the sites of Prag-Rusin, Letov- Werke (Lettow), the Skoda Works at Pressburg/Trentschin 7. Epp, 1994, pages 30-31 8. Epp, 1994, pages 28-33 9. Keller, Werner, Dr., April 25, 1953, Welt am Sonntag, "Erste "Flugscheibe" flog 1945 in Prag enthuellt SpeersBeauftrager", an interview of Georg Klein 10. Meier, 1999, page 23 11. Personal letter from J. Andreas Epp dated 12/30/91 12. Epp, 1994, page 27, 30 13. Lusar, 1964, 220 14. Holberg, Jan, 8/20/54, page 4, "UFOs gibt es nicht! Wohl aber: Flugscheiben am laufenden Band!" Das Neue Zeitalter 15. Epp, 1994, page 31 16. Barton, Michael X., 1968, page 38, The German Saucer Story, Futura Press, Los Angeles (based upon Hermann Klaas) 17. Zwicky, Viktor, September 19, 1954, page 4, Tages-Anzeiger52  fuer Stadt und Kanton Zuerich, "Das Raetsel der Fliegenden Teller Ein Interview mit Oberingenieur Georg Klein, derunseren Lesern Ursprung und Konstruktion dieser Flugkoerpererklaert" 18. Klein, Georg, October 16, 1954, page 5, "Die Fliegenden Teller", Tages-Anzeiger fuer Stadt und Kanton Zuerich 19. Epp, 1994, page 31 20. ibid 21. Epp, 1994, page 34 2 . Lusar, 1964, page 220 23. Meier, Hans Justus, 1999, page 10, "Zum Thema "FleigendeUntertassen" Der Habermohlsche Flugkreisel", FllegerkalenderInternationales Jahrbuch der Luft-und Raumfahrt 24. Combined Intelligence Committee Evaluation Reports, CombinedIntelligence Objectives Subcommittee, Evaluation Report 149, page 8 25. Der Spiegel, March 30, 1959, "Untertassen Sie fliegen aberdoch" Article about and interview of Rudolf Schriever 26. Zunneck, 1998, page 119 27. This written statement, translated from Bavarian dialect to High German was provided courtesy of publisher Thomas Mehner 28. Epp, 1994, page 30 29. Epp, 1994, page 31 30. Personal letter from J. Andreas Epp dated 12/30/91 31. ibid 32. Klein, Georg, October 16, 1954, page 5, "Die "FliegendenTeller", Tages-Anzeiger fuer Stadt und Kanton Zuerich 33. Epp, 1994, page 26 34. ibid 35. Epp, 1994, page 27 36. Epp, 1994, page 33 17. ibid 38. Kadmon, 2000, Ahnstern IX, "Andreas Epp", Aorta c/o Petak, 53  Postfach 778, A-1011, Wien, Austria 39. Personal letter from Andreas Epp, dated 12/30/91 40. Combined Intelligence Objectives Sub-Committee Evaluation Report, Report Number 40 "Sonderausschuss" 41. Kadmon, 2000, Ahnstern IX, "Andreas Epp" 42. Personal letter from Andreas Epp, dated 12/30/91 43. Epp, 1994, page 31 54  The Miethe-Belluzzo Project This saucer project may have been an outgrowth of flying wingresearch. It was begun in 1942, and was under the on-site nuthority of Dr. Richard Miethe, sometimes called Dr. HeinrichRichard Miethe. Not much is known about Dr. Miethe before the war. After the war Dr. Miethe is rumored to have worked on the Anglo-American saucer project at the firm of Avro AircraftLimited of Canada. Such is stated Klein (1)/ Epp (2), Barton (3), Lusar (4), as well as a myriad of other sources. We will return to the Avro projects later. Working with Dr. Miethe was an Italian engineer, ProfessorGuiseppe Belluzzo. Belluzzo was the Deputy, Senator and Ministerof National Economy under Mussolini. He had written severalbooks on technical matters including Steam Turbines in 1926 andcalculations and Installations of Modern Turbine Hydrolics in1922 (names are English translations of Italian titles). Belluzzo was considered to be an expert in steam turbines. Dr. Belluzzo was not a junior scientist and he was not Dr. Miethe'sassistant. He was a senior scientist whose expertise was somehowinvaluable on the saucer devices or planned further developments of them. After the war Belluzzo seems to have led a quiet life in Italyuntil his death on 5/22/52. Unlike Miethe, however, Belluzzowent on record about German flying discs after the war. He isquoted on the subject in The Mirror, a major Los Angelesnewspaper in 1950. This may be the first mention of the subjectin the American press. In his obituary in the New York Times hiswork on the German saucer program is mentioned. (Please refer to copies of these articles). This team worked in facilities in, Dresden, Breslau and Letow/Prag according to Epp (5). Both this project and theSchriever and Habermohl projects were directed by the same experts and advisors (6). From Epp's discussion, it is clearthat Dr. Walter Dornberger first evaluated and recommended hissaucer model for further development (7). Miethe is described byEpp in translation as a "known V-weapons designer"(8). The association of both projects to Peenemuende is clear. Both weresanctioned and set up by officials there, probably by Dr. Walter Dornberger himself. Miethe and Belluzzo worked primarily inDresden and Breslau but for a brief time they may have actuallyjoined forces with Schriever and Habermohl in Prag, as evidenced by Klein's statement that three saucer models were destroyed onthe Prag tarmac (9). One saucer, which Klein he describes asMiethe's was among these. Klein acknowledges that Peenemuende, and its nearby test facility at Stettin, retained and developed the Miethe design as an unmanned vehicle (10)(11). Epp tells us that the Miethe-Belluzzo project was organized underexactly the same authority as the Schriever-Habermohl project and55  Giuseppe Belluzzo On the left, a column from The Mirror, dated March 24, 1950. This is one of the earliest English references toGerman flying discs. On the right is Dr. Belluzzo's obituary, dated May 22, 1952 from the New York Times whichagain mentions German flying discs.  he further identifies the very same industrial firms which supported Schriever-Habermohl as supporting this project (12). In reality, both should be viewed as one project with differentaspects. The designs envisioned by Dr. Miethe and Professor Belluzzo were quite different from those of Schriever and Habermohl. Designsof this project consisted of a discus-shaped craft whose outerperiphery did not rotate. Two designs have positively been nttributed to Miethe and Belluzzo although three designs exist aspart of their legacy. The first design is made known to us from Georg Klein's articlein the October 16, 1954 edition of the Swiss newspaper, Tages- Anzeiger fuer Stadt und Kanton Zuerich, mentioned above. The same design is reproduced in the book by J. Andreas Epp. Thissaucer was not intended to take-off vertically but at an angle asdoes a conventional airplane. In this design twelve jet enginesare shown to be mounted "outboard" to power the craft. Thecockpit was mounted at the rear of the vehicle and a periscope used to monitor directions visually impaired. Notably, a largegyroscope mounted internally at the center of the craft provided stability. This and other Miethe-Belluzzo designs were said tobe 42 meters or 138 feet in diameter. Aeronautical writer Hans Justus Me