Read B00AY88OHE EBOK for Free Online

SS in 1944, along with other saucer projects, and fell under the purview of Dr. Hans Kammler (37). Schriever altered the length of the wing-vanes from their original design. This alteration caused the instability. Schriever was still trying to work out this problem in his version of the saucer as the Russians overran Prag. Habermohl, according to Epp, went back to his original specifications, with two or three successful flights for his version.
    While speaking of flight success, two more pieces of important evidence exists which were supplied by Joseph Andreas Epp. One comes in the form of a statement by a German test pilot, Otto Lange, given years after the war to Andreas Epp. In that statement, signed by Lange, Epp is credited with the idea behind the invention of the flying 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 flying saucer for 500 kilometers in the course of testing (38) (39).
    Otto Lange is a person who is known historically and independently 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, has found evidence for three individuals with this name serving in the 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. It was signed by another hand, so perhaps Epp and Lange had a chance meeting in 1965 wherein the letter was drafted by Epp in an effort to further document his, at that time, little-acknowledged involvement in the German saucer projects.
    The second piece of evidence, also supplied by Epp, is a wartime letter from Prag, dated March, 1944. It speaks to the conditions behind German lines with its opening greeting, simply “Still Alive!.” It follows in a cryptic style describing historically well known political and military people who apparently knew or had something to do with the saucer project at Prag. The letter also describes some early prototype saucer models and their shortcomings. Interestingly enough figures on thrust are given (40) (41).
    A Comparison of the Schriever and Habermohl Designs

    On the left is the Schriever design while on the right is the Habermohl design. Please note the differing dimensions of the vane blades. This difference caused instability in the Schriever design. Drawings adapted from the work of Klaus-Peter Rothkugel.
    Three pictures appear at the bottom of the letter. One definitely shows a saucer in flight. There is no mention of these pictures in the text of the letter. Because they are not referenced and from their placement on the face of the letter it is possible that these pictures may have been a later addition to that letter. There are some other reasons why these pictures may not have been connected to the Schriever-Habermohl project or the Miethe-Belluzzo project. We shall return to these pictures at a later time.
    An interesting fact elucidated by Epp is that the senior experts and advisors for both the Schriever-Habermohl project and the next project to be discussed, the Miethe-Belluzzo project, were exactly the same individuals (43).
    Sources and References
      1.  Meier, Hans Justus, 1999, page 24, “Zum Thema “Fliegende Untertassen” Der Habermohlsche Flugkreisel,” reprinted in Fliegerkalender 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 und Geheimwaffen des 2. Weltkrieges und ihre Weiterentwicklung, J.F. Lemanns Verlag, Munich
      3.  Lusar, 1964, ibid
      4.  Epp, Joseph Andreas, 1994, page 28, Die Realitaet der Flugscheiben, Efodon e.V., c/o Gernot L. Geise, Zoepfstrasse 8,