Hindenburg: Was Zeppelin technology a threat to the 20th century?

trismegistus

Well-known member
Messages
168
Reactions
898
Background
Most of the background for the Hindenburg can be found here, I will abridge thusly.

199-2-640x488.jpg

dzr-flag-385x297.jpgtail-swastika-385x257.jpghindenburg-747-comparison-550x172.jpghindenb-construct052web-385x251.jpg

Wouldn't be a SH post without at least some reference to a flag with an eagle on it :sneaky:
Actual construction of LZ-129 began in the Fall of 1931, but progress lagged due to a severe lack of funds during the Depression. At first, the Nazi Party’s assumption of power in January, 1933 had little effect on the fortunes of the Zeppelin Company, partly due to Air Minister Hermann Göring’s dislike of lighter-than-air flight. But Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels was aware of the potential symbolic value of LZ-129 as a showcase for German strength and technology, and in 1934 Goebbels offered Hugo Eckener 2 million marks toward the completion of LZ-129.
So not only did the Hindenburg represent the finest in air travel, it also represented the finest in Nazi propaganda. They pretty much used it like Goodyear uses their blimp -- at sporting events, rallies, and other events where the Nazis wanted to show off their prowess.
By the end of 1936, Hindenburg had crossed the Atlantic 34 times, carrying over 3,500 passengers and more than 66,000 pounds of mail and freight, and the ship’s highly successful 1936 season seemed to indicate that regular transatlantic air service had arrived.
So for those that haven't looked much into it, it is clear that the Hindenburg had already established a track record of successful transatlantic flights with no issues.

A Life of Luxury
Imagine a world in which luxury travel was not only available to everyone, but was also affordable. In its day, airship travel was twice as fast as steamship travel and didn't require one to spend days adjusting to the tossing and turning of the ocean. You could leisurely float ~500-1000ft above the ocean in your transoceanic journey. Here is a translated except from the Hindenburg welcome brochure:
You open your suit case and arrange your clothes in the wardrobe. At last, your shaving kit, hair brushes and other articles of toilet are displayed upon the toilet stand. At once, your cabin acquires a homely personal atmosphere. You listen for the roar of the engines, or the fierce rush and vibration of the air, but apart from a distant quiet murmur, everything is tranquil and peaceful. You feel that nothing will disturb your sleep. Your steward appears and explains to you the arrangement of the handles and switches for light, heat, and ventilation. You are shown the bell-push in your cabin which will bring him to your side at any time during the day or night. Before he leaves), he reminds you to leave your shoes outside your cabin door for cleaning. You begin to feel that nothing has been overlooked to ensure your comfort.
hindenburg-bar-drinks-1024x707.jpghindenburg-dining017web1.jpghindenburg-promendade015web-385x245.jpglz129-dining-room21.jpg
hindenburg-smoking-room002-276x385.jpgpassenger-cabin-photo.jpg

Nazi regalia aside, sign me up! Its the first class experience that airplanes can only dream of providing. But I didn't make this post to oogle at the marvel that is luxurious travel, we need to talk about the design and implementation of airship technology.

Helium Powered Giants

hindenburgcuttaway_2.pnglz129-diesel-web-385x274.jpglz129-engine-car-1024x642.jpglz129-main-rings-1024x563.jpg
Oh yeah, *slaps hood of Hindenburg* this baby can hold so much helium and coal.

As a matter of fact, according to the writings of Kenneth Price Jr, 1lb of coal could carry one person and their luggage from Berlin to NYC at the cost of $1/lb!

So not only do airships like the Hindenburg utilize anti-gravity tech (Helium is lighter than air), they are also more fuel efficient than any modern jet airliner or vehicle!
Each of Hindenburg’s four LOF-6 (DB-602) 16-cylinder engines had an output of 1320 hp @ 1650 RPM (maximum power), and 900 hp @ 1480 RPM.

The normal cruise setting was 1350 RPM, generating approximately 850 hp, and this setting was usually not adjusted during an ocean crossing. The engines were started with compressed air, and could be started, stopped, and reversed in flight.

Using 2:1 reduction gearing, each engine drove a 4-bladed, fixed-pitch, 19.7′ diameter metal-sheathed wooden propeller (created from two 2-bladed props fused together).
There were plans, never implemented, to add a fifth engine car, containing a Daimler-Benz diesel adapted to burn hydrogen. The proposed installation would have been an experiment to improve the ship’s economy and efficiency by burning hydrogen which would otherwise have been valved. (Hindenburg valved between 1 and 1-1/2 million cubic feet of hydrogen on an average north Atlantic crossing.)
An engine designed to burn the valved hydrogen? That's damn near a free energy device, or about as close as you can get when it comes to travel of this scale.

Did you know:
  • One ton of coal has the same thermal energy as 188 gallons of petroleum?
  • The Hindenburg was capable of flying around the world in 1936 without stopping for fuel?
  • One modern Airbus carries enough fuel to power the Hindenburg 6 times across the Atlantic?
  • So its safe, efficient, cheap, luxurious, and well received by the public. What could possibly go wrong?
The Horror!

197-1-640x523.jpg198-2-640x507.jpghindenburg-bow-torch-355x385.jpg

The story of the Hindenburg crash is all that remains of the history of this incredible flying machine. Let's start with the "official" explanation.

The Hindenburg disaster at Lakehurst, New Jersey on May 6, 1937 brought an end to the age of the rigid airship.

The disaster killed 35 persons on the airship, and one member of the ground crew, but miraculously 62 of the 97 passengers and crew survived.

After more than 30 years of passenger travel on commercial zeppelins — in which tens of thousands of passengers flew over a million miles, on more than 2,000 flights, without a single injury — the era of the passenger airship came to an end in a few fiery minutes.
Almost 80 years of research and scientific tests support the same conclusion reached by the original German and American accident investigations in 1937: It seems clear that the Hindenburg disaster was caused by an electrostatic discharge (i.e., a spark) that ignited leaking hydrogen.

The spark was most likely caused by a difference in electric potential between the airship and the surrounding air: The airship was approximately 60 meters (about 200 feet) above the airfield in an electrically charged atmosphere, but the ship’s metal framework was grounded by its landing line; the difference in electric potential likely caused a spark to jump from the ship’s fabric covering (which had the ability to hold a charge) to the ship’s framework (which was grounded through the landing line). A somewhat less likely but still plausible theory attributes the spark to coronal discharge, more commonly known as St. Elmo’s Fire.
And that was the last time anyone ever saw commercial airship travel. No, seriously. It was over after this, after hundreds of successful flights and a track record for safety (pretty amazing that anyone survived that crash, they were clearly designed with safety in mind) airship travel was, on the whole, removed from the public.

The following section is the high octane speculation and ruminations on stolen history that I created this post for.

Oil Barons: Mucking thing up for everyone, all the time
You can't really get very far into topics like these without inevitably hitting the brick wall that is Oil Interests of the 19th and 20th Century. These are your Rockefellers, Standard Oil, etc. Others have been blamed for the conspiracy to destroy the Hindenburg - - even the FBI investigated the matter and speculated that the plot was designed by anti-fascist Communists (full disclosure: I only skimmed the FOIA report linked above, perhaps someone braver than I could dive deeper and find some gems in there, as I didn't see much). However when it comes to events like this, one must always ask: Qui Bono?

If you've made it this far in this post, you could see how a technology like the Hindenburg threatens the petroleum oligopoly of the day. Moreover, there was a symbolic issue here - - the Hindenburg was the crown jewel of the Nazi party which to some was not exactly kosher. It is hardly a secret that many businessman of the day had deals with Nazis just as soon as anyone else, but this threat was on a different level because it represented a potential end to the Oil Oligarchy.

Isn't it a bit curious that right after the Titanic and Hindenburg disasters you have a concerted effort to standardize transportation to running off petroleum almost exclusively? And that standard has neither changed nor evolved in over 100 years?

Kenneth Price brings up some questions that I ask anyone who is going to do further research on the topic to look into and see if you can answer for yourself:

Why was the public never shown one single photographic picture that showed the beginning of Hindenburg‘s fire even though there were 22 professional photographers at the event to film her docking?

Why were there so many photographers there to film the Hindenburg's arrival into Lakehurst, Va. when she had already completed 34 successful transatlantic crossings the prior year?

Why was a “static spark ” theory selected as Hindenburg’s nemesis when there was no evidence to support the occurrence of a static spark in the first place since it had never occurred in the four previous decades of flying hydrogen-filled zeppelins?

Why did all nations stop building rigid airships after the burning of the Hindenburg when she and Graf Zeppelin had clearly demonstrated an effective form of anti-gravity resulting in extreme fuel efficiency?

Why does hydrogen continue to be shunned as a gas that is flammable when modern airliners and passenger cars continue to carry a fuel that is not only volatile but even more dangerous?

Postscript
I am totally open to this topic weaving towards the direction of this discussion towards "rediscovered" technology. While I didn't necessarily find a ton of evidence to support the model that airship tech was the stolen product of a past civilization, that doesn't mean its not out there. I highly recommend checking out the work of Kenneth M. Price, as his research is responsible for this post today.
 
Last edited:

Paracelsus

Well-known member
Messages
295
Reactions
1,188
Ever heard of Professor Louis Rotas' levitating craft, the Aero Radio Balistique? It looks like the scaffolding of the Zeppelin - sans skin - and uses electromagnetism to fly. This advanced and futuristic craft was built at a top secret test site underneath a mountain at the Groom Lake S4 facility. No, wait - scratch that - it was built by a brilliant Italian inventor in a common workshop in the 1920's.

1545169796593.png
1545169813889.png


Aero Radio Balistique - WikiRota
 
Last edited:

KorbenDallas

Negotiator
Messages
3,410
Reactions
11,730
Uss_Patoka_AO9.jpg

I'm 100% onboard with dirigibles having been scrapped on purpose. This technology is up there with all those rivetless ships and other things we keep on talking about.

A few words about Hindenburg: United States refused to provide helium, and Hindenburg ended up using hydrogen?


  • U.S. law prevented the Hindenburg from using helium instead of hydrogen, which is more flammable. After the crash of the hydrogen-filled R101, in which most of the crew died in the subsequent fire rather than the impact itself, Hindenburg designer Hugo Eckener sought to use helium, a less flammable lifting gas.
  • The Hindenburg Disaster: 9 Surprising Facts
You gotta love the above excerpt from the History stories. Since when did helium become flammable?
  • As helium is lighter than air it can be used to inflate airships, blimps and balloons, providing lift. Although hydrogen is cheaper and more buoyant, helium is preferred as it is non-flammable.
  • Helium is an inert gas. Inert quite literally means non-combustible. In fact, helium (in its liquid state) is actually used as a coolant for things like rocket ships, MRI machines, and particle accelerators.
  • Is helium flammable? — Ask Zephyr, the helium experts
KD: I don't know about you, but the decision to feel up with hydrogen sounds somewhat, or may be even "very" fishy. We just keep on accepting that people were idiots back then.

Some Photographs
zeppelin.jpg

Interior of the Graf Zeppelin

airship-hanger.jpg

zeppelin-in-hanger.jpg

Zeppelin Hangar

GrafZeppelin.jpg


Back To The Future
Certain things never fail to speak up. The tech gets abandoned to be resurrected 100 years later. All those ancient faxes, hyperloops and such. Where are we heading to with this "new" approach to air travel, back to the future?

Duh: Much of the world has no access to paved roads. Vast cargo-bearing airships could reach places that planes and trucks can’t.
  • This is the prime example of how suspicions this entire issue is.
cruise-centklk4.jpg

High-tech cargo airship being built in California
hightechcarg.jpg

Source
The Aeroscraft airship, a high-tech prototype airship, is seen in a World War II-era hangar in Tustin, Calif., Thursday, Jan. 24, 2013. Work is almost done on a 230-foot rigid airship inside a blimp hangar at a former military base in Orange Co. The huge cargo-carrying airship is has shiny aluminum skin and a rigid, 230-foot aluminum and carbon fiber skeleton. (AP Photo/Jae C. Hong)

aeroship.jpg

Source

The massive blimp-like aircraft flies but just barely, hovering only a dozen feet off a military hangar floor during flight testing south of Los Angeles. Still, the fact that the hulking Aeroscraft could fly for just a few minutes represents a step forward in aviation, according to the engineers who developed it. The Department of Defense and NASA have invested $35 million in the prototype because of its potential to one day carry more cargo than any other aircraft to disaster zones and forward military bases.

2-hightechcarg.jpg

And here is where we could get suspicious. We all have seen the above "hangar" shape. May be those were not originally meant for trains.

Gravure_«_Le_palais_de_Justice_après_l'incendie_»-_Coll_du_musée-Archives-nationales-France.jpg

louvre_2.jpg

railstation.jpg

Roof_of_Kievsky_Railway_Station.jpg

airship-hanger1.jpg

KD: These airships are so much safer too. Just a thought.

I think it was a global (blanket) riddance of this mode of transportation. While writing this post I ran into this Russian airship related page through some google images. I do not see Russians caring much for that 1936 Hindenburg catastrophe. So why did they scrap the program as well? No helium? Check it out, it's worth it.
1894
Olga Romanoff
Olga Romanoff; or, The syren of the skies : a sequel to "The angel of the revolution".
Read #1 - Read #2

syrenoftheskies.jpg

Which Olga Romanoff was this? The onelinked below? Was she 12 y.o. when she wrote her books?
 
OP
trismegistus

trismegistus

Well-known member
Messages
168
Reactions
898
The massive blimp-like aircraft flies but just barely, hovering only a dozen feet off a military hangar floor during flight testing south of Los Angeles. Still, the fact that the hulking Aeroscraft could fly for just a few minutes represents a step forward in aviation, according to the engineers who developed it. The Department of Defense and NASA have invested $35 million in the prototype because of its potential to one day carry more cargo than any other aircraft to disaster zones and forward military bases.
Sounds like classic military industrial complex waste of resources to me. I'd like someone to explain to me why this design is so much safer or efficient than the original airships. Something makes me think it is not the case.

Totally not surprised the US made them use flammable hydrogen gas in lieu of helium. If anything, it just proves my point that business interests at the time wanted to have nothing to do with truly disruptive technology.

Honestly, how the Hindenburg was destroyed or who performed the act isn't even really important in the grand scheme of things (other than it was definitely done on purpose). It keeps people off the trail of the real story which is that this type of technology was a threat to the oil industry, and also may have its origins in history farther back than we imagine.

If we pull apart the thread of "airship tech is older than we are led to believe", then does that help explain the mysterious Airship sightings in the late 1800s?
Beginning in November 1896 in the skies of San Francisco, California, a wave of strange airship sightings began. Hundreds of people witnessed the strange craft travelling at considerable speed and scanning the land below with what appeared to be searchlights. Further sightings were recorded the same day in Santa Rosa and Sacramento.

The sightings continued across the United States over the early months of 1897. Thousands of people witnessed them and newspaper report after another detailed each sighting. Many of the accounts when read today are strikingly similar to modern day UFO sightings. The “cigar” shape and bright and multi-coloured lights that were described are just two examples. As is the descriptions of the “quiet but constant” whirring sound that was noticed when the airships were sighted.

On 10th April an airship sighting over Chicago was witnessed by thousands of people as the city came to a virtual standstill.
Here's a newspaper I found describing the event.

Here's an article from the next day claiming that it was known military technology being used to destroy the city of Havana? :ROFLMAO: Its spicier than swamp gas, I'll give them that.

I don't want to necessarily turn this into a woo woo thread, but it is at least worth pointing out that this technology was conceivably out there long before we assume, and people were terrified of it.
 
Last edited:

Paracelsus

Well-known member
Messages
295
Reactions
1,188
Sounds like classic military industrial complex waste of resources to me. I'd like someone to explain to me why this design is so much safer or efficient than the original airships. Something makes me think it is not the case.

Totally not surprised the US made them use flammable hydrogen gas in lieu of helium. If anything, it just proves my point that business interests at the time wanted to have nothing to do with truly disruptive technology.

Honestly, how the Hindenburg was destroyed or who performed the act isn't even really important in the grand scheme of things (other than it was definitely done on purpose). It keeps people off the trail of the real story which is that this type of technology was a threat to the oil industry, and also may have its origins in history farther back than we imagine.

If we pull apart the thread of "airship tech is older than we are led to believe", then does that help explain the mysterious Airship sightings in the late 1800s?

Here's a newspaper I found describing the event.

I don't want to necessarily turn this into a woo woo thread, but it is at least worth pointing out that this technology was conceivably out there long before we assume, and people were terrified of it.
My inaugural post on StolenHistory: The Sonora Aero Club
 

KorbenDallas

Negotiator
Messages
3,410
Reactions
11,730
Funny thing here. 200 years of flight history in 1890s. Right?

200 years offlight.jpg

200 years offlight_1.jpg

In the year 1670 Francesco Lana de Terzi published a book titled Prodromo, including a chapter titled saggio di alcune invenzioni nuove premesso all'arte maestra ("Essay on new inventions premitted to the master art"), which contained the description of a “flying ship”. Encouraged by the experiments of Otto von Guericke with the Magdeburg hemispheres, in 1663 Lana de Terzi developed an idea for a lighter than air vessel.

His design had a central mast to which a sail was attached, and four masts which had thin copper foil spheres attached to them: the air would be pumped out of the spheres, leaving a vacuum inside, and so being lighter than the surrounding air, would provide lift . The airship would be steered like a sailing boat. Each sphere would have had a diameter of 7.5 m (24 ft 7 in). Terzi calculated that the weight of a sphere would be 180 kg (396 lb). He also calculated that the air in the sphere would weigh 290 kg (638 lb), and would provide enough lift to carry 6 passengers. At the time no one could manufacture such thin copper foil and the pressure of the surrounding air would have collapsed the spheres. In addition, Francesco Lana de Terzi was aware that one could use such a vehicle as a weapon of war, and attack cities from air. He wrote: “God will never allow that such a machine be built…because everybody realises that no city would be safe from raids…iron weights, fireballs and bombs could be hurled from a great height".

The fact that these vacuum spheres were physically impossible was proven in 1710 by Gottfried William Leibniz, and such a vessel has never been built. Although Leibniz's conclusion was made based on the materials known at the time, the discovery of graphene and recent advances in its production may render this conclusion obsolete. A model of Lana de Terzi's invention is on display at the Smithsonian National Air and Space Museum in Washington, D.C.

terzi.jpg


Francesco-Lana-de-Terzis-flying-boat.jpg

Funny how some guy randomly figured it was possible in 1670s. Vacuum spheres, what a random thought for 1670s. And only now do we come to the conclusion that it could be possible.

a_Lana_6a.jpg

Francesco Lana de Terzi - a Jesuit Father and professor of physics and mathematics at Brescia first published a description of an “Aerial Ship.” Terzi is commonly referred to as the “Father of Aeronautics” for turning the field of aeronautics into a science by establishing “a theory of aerial navigation verified by mathematical accuracy.”

The “Father of Aeronautics”
Francesco Lana de Terzi
 

asatiger1966

Well-known member
Messages
170
Reactions
752
It was openly stated by Churchill that the goal of WWI and WWII was to destroy the German people not Hitler. The group that denied us the technology is not clear to me yet.

The Germans as a people were so far ahead of the other countries that someone was afraid of losing power, money, control pick one that were willing, and did, to kill millions of people to stop their direction of culture, technology from spreading.

The German scientists were smart, disciplined and independent of thought. it is entirely realistic to think that a few Germans had bloodlines from an advanced past civilization and as supporting manufacturing advances were accomplished they were implementing their "lost knowledge". The coordinated attacks on the Germans reminds me of blood feuds common though out history.

The Americans alone killed after the war about one to two million captured soldiers by starvation. Eisenhower ordered this action giving orders to shoot anyone giving food, medical supplies, shelter to the soldiers. So they sat in open camps with nothing but what they were captured wearing and died. The German Army under General Paulus that surrendered at Stalingrad was about 80,000 plus thousand. Only 3,000 came home. There were about eight million civilians men, women and children killed after the fighting stopped. I am not counting the Germans killed during the war.

A side thought did Germany really surrender , or only the German Army?
 

dreamtime

Well-known member
Messages
465
Reactions
2,290
It was openly stated by Churchill that the goal of WWI and WWII was to destroy the German people not Hitler. The group that denied us the technology is not clear to me yet.

The Germans as a people were so far ahead of the other countries that someone was afraid of losing power, money, control pick one that were willing, and did, to kill millions of people to stop their direction of culture, technology from spreading.

The German scientists were smart, disciplined and independent of thought. it is entirely realistic to think that a few Germans had bloodlines from an advanced past civilization and as supporting manufacturing advances were accomplished they were implementing their "lost knowledge". The coordinated attacks on the Germans reminds me of blood feuds common though out history.

The Americans alone killed after the war about one to two million captured soldiers by starvation. Eisenhower ordered this action giving orders to shoot anyone giving food, medical supplies, shelter to the soldiers. So they sat in open camps with nothing but what they were captured wearing and died. The German Army under General Paulus that surrendered at Stalingrad was about 80,000 plus thousand. Only 3,000 came home. There were about eight million civilians men, women and children killed after the fighting stopped. I am not counting the Germans killed during the war.

A side thought did Germany really surrender , or only the German Army?
My grandfather was one of the german prisoners in Russia. After the war was over it took years until he was allowed to come home, he almost starved to death.

A honest look at the situation shows that during the 19th century no one came close in technological advancement and efficiency as the germans. It could even be said that the germans invented science, and exported it everywhere. The Prussian law is basically the foundation of the majority of national law systems in the world (afaik).

Looking at what has become of my country I have to say Churchill was successful, we have lost our soul. There's too much pain that isn't allowed to heal, and the generations with this pain simply slowly dies out, and the new generations are brought up with the poison of globalism and self-hate.

One of the most painful aspects was the division of our country and the theft of the eastern states. For decades, even up to the fall of the Berlin Wall, millions of refugees hoped to get their homes back in the east, they were never again allowed to feel home. For them, the new Germany was a lie.

I wouldn't be surprised if there's a more hidden aspect here, and at the end of the 19th Century the PTB decided that Germany had to go, as it became a threat. I really wonder what role the german people played 300 or 600 years ago, as their spirit would have certainly transpired earlier than only shortly before WW1.

There were many branches where the germans stepped out of the line with "accepted technology" it seems, and this zeppelin technology is one example. You can see there's a single united ruling class in the world simply based on the fact that not a single nations steps out of line when it comes to technology and how to manage society, they all follow the exact same path, and when not they are defeated (Libya, etc.). People are brainwashed into thinking there's only this single way of life.
 
Last edited:

asatiger1966

Well-known member
Messages
170
Reactions
752
This is what the Germans were accomplishing early 1835.

Caption
V3100089-First_German_railway,_1835.jpg

First German railway. Historical artwork of crowds of people watching the first German train on 7 December 1835. This train ran from Nuremberg to Furth, a distance of 7 kilometres. The train was powered by a steam engine and took 12 minutes to complete the journey. It caused a sensation, and soldiers had difficulty controlling the crowds. Though the line was never extended, and was closed in 1922, by the 1840s over 1000 kilometres of rail had been built in Germany. The locomotive for the train was called Adler (the Eagle), and had been purchased from England. The first regular train services on this line only ran twice a day. This is a mid-19th century German engraving.

At the same time the first American railroad the Baltimore and Ohio Rail Road Company , after touring Europe came up with a design to accomplish the same result. The British were the first to build a public railway.
These countries literally invented within a very few years of each other, 2-8 years, almost identical technology, curious.
 

ripvanwillie

Active member
Messages
34
Reactions
145
Background
Most of the background for the Hindenburg can be found here, I will abridge thusly.


Wouldn't be a SH post without at least some reference to a flag with an eagle on it :sneaky:

So not only did the Hindenburg represent the finest in air travel, it also represented the finest in Nazi propaganda. They pretty much used it like Goodyear uses their blimp -- at sporting events, rallies, and other events where the Nazis wanted to show off their prowess.

So for those that haven't looked much into it, it is clear that the Hindenburg had already established a track record of successful transatlantic flights with no issues.

A Life of Luxury
Imagine a world in which luxury travel was not only available to everyone, but was also affordable. In its day, airship travel was twice as fast as steamship travel and didn't require one to spend days adjusting to the tossing and turning of the ocean. You could leisurely float ~500-1000ft above the ocean in your transoceanic journey. Here is a translated except from the Hindenburg welcome brochure:



Nazi regalia aside, sign me up! Its the first class experience that airplanes can only dream of providing. But I didn't make this post to oogle at the marvel that is luxurious travel, we need to talk about the design and implementation of airship technology.

Oh yeah, *slaps hood of Hindenburg* this baby can hold so much helium and coal.

As a matter of fact, according to the writings of Kenneth Price Jr, 1lb of coal could carry one person and their luggage from Berlin to NYC at the cost of $1/lb!

So not only do airships like the Hindenburg utilize anti-gravity tech (Helium is lighter than air), they are also more fuel efficient than any modern jet airliner or vehicle!


An engine designed to burn the valved hydrogen? That's damn near a free energy device, or about as close as you can get when it comes to travel of this scale.

Did you know:
  • One ton of coal has the same thermal energy as 188 gallons of petroleum?
  • The Hindenburg was capable of flying around the world in 1936 without stopping for fuel?
  • One modern Airbus carries enough fuel to power the Hindenburg 6 times across the Atlantic?
  • So its safe, efficient, cheap, luxurious, and well received by the public. What could possibly go wrong?

The story of the Hindenburg crash is all that remains of the history of this incredible flying machine. Let's start with the "official" explanation.




And that was the last time anyone ever saw commercial airship travel. No, seriously. It was over after this, after hundreds of successful flights and a track record for safety (pretty amazing that anyone survived that crash, they were clearly designed with safety in mind) airship travel was, on the whole, removed from the public.

The following section is the high octane speculation and ruminations on stolen history that I created this post for.

Oil Barons: Mucking thing up for everyone, all the time
You can't really get very far into topics like these without inevitably hitting the brick wall that is Oil Interests of the 19th and 20th Century. These are your Rockefellers, Standard Oil, etc. Others have been blamed for the conspiracy to destroy the Hindenburg - - even the FBI investigated the matter and speculated that the plot was designed by anti-fascist Communists (full disclosure: I only skimmed the FOIA report linked above, perhaps someone braver than I could dive deeper and find some gems in there, as I didn't see much). However when it comes to events like this, one must always ask: Qui Bono?

If you've made it this far in this post, you could see how a technology like the Hindenburg threatens the petroleum oligopoly of the day. Moreover, there was a symbolic issue here - - the Hindenburg was the crown jewel of the Nazi party which to some was not exactly kosher. It is hardly a secret that many businessman of the day had deals with Nazis just as soon as anyone else, but this threat was on a different level because it represented a potential end to the Oil Oligarchy.

Isn't it a bit curious that right after the Titanic and Hindenburg disasters you have a concerted effort to standardize transportation to running off petroleum almost exclusively? And that standard has neither changed nor evolved in over 100 years?

Kenneth Price brings up some questions that I ask anyone who is going to do further research on the topic to look into and see if you can answer for yourself:

Why was the public never shown one single photographic picture that showed the beginning of Hindenburg‘s fire even though there were 22 professional photographers at the event to film her docking?

Why were there so many photographers there to film the Hindenburg's arrival into Lakehurst, Va. when she had already completed 34 successful transatlantic crossings the prior year?

Why was a “static spark ” theory selected as Hindenburg’s nemesis when there was no evidence to support the occurrence of a static spark in the first place since it had never occurred in the four previous decades of flying hydrogen-filled zeppelins?

Why did all nations stop building rigid airships after the burning of the Hindenburg when she and Graf Zeppelin had clearly demonstrated an effective form of anti-gravity resulting in extreme fuel efficiency?

Why does hydrogen continue to be shunned as a gas that is flammable when modern airliners and passenger cars continue to carry a fuel that is not only volatile but even more dangerous?

Postscript
I am totally open to this topic weaving towards the direction of this discussion towards "rediscovered" technology. While I didn't necessarily find a ton of evidence to support the model that airship tech was the stolen product of a past civilization, that doesn't mean its not out there. I highly recommend checking out the work of Kenneth M. Price, as his research is responsible for this post today.
I agree with your view 100%, and I'm very glad you brought up this subject. I think it is critically important in understanding what we see in the media. The event looks suspicious, but the films of it are what had the most impact on society.
When in college I studied film making as my major. We were taught how to break down and investigate film, frame by frame for the purpose of not only seeing how they are made, but to try to understand the motivation behind the decisions we see unfold on the screen.
The psychology of film making.
In some of the classes, we would break down important films of the past and have group discussions, led by our professor, on whether these were news or entertainment, and the effect they had on society and technology. The video of the Hindenburg was discussed as a seminal moment where video footage influenced the thinking of people around the world, and changed the potential path of travel.
This was the first and only disaster many people ever saw back then. It was considered the great tragedy of its time. After all, people back then weren't exposed to violence and disaster like we have been since our youth, and moving images were still new to many. They were only a few years past the silent film era.
This was the most shocking moving image most people ever saw. Most saw it for the first time during a social event, intermission of a film viewing. The evening news had yet to be invented. The first broadcast was still three years in the future (another area of discussion) in 1940. There was no such thing as a documentaries as we know them. All they had was newsreel propaganda to supplement newspapers and radio broadcasts. And people believed it was the truth because it came from the authorities they trusted. They had nothing to compare it with except for the propaganda from the perceived enemy. Opposite sides of the same coin.
It was the films, the way they were reported, edited, then distributed en masse to theatres around the world that created the public response against dirigibles rather than the disaster itself. If people would have just read about it in the paper or heard it on the radio without seeing the broadcast, it would have had minimal impact on society. This is a common discussion in film school. News is propaganda. Propaganda guides society. Film does it best.
Just watch and listen to how he reports this event, what he says, the inflection in his voice, and his emotional response to what's happening around him. Remember, this is supposed to be a live broadcast.


This was heavily edited, and seemed to be scripted as well. There is a video cut at the moment of explosion as well as at least two audio cuts immediately following. The video cuts between two different camera sources with a different exposure to capture the flames. The first frame after the cut is black. Then he describes the scene as if it were a script. He even says at one point "all the folks agree that this is terrible, this is one of the worst catastrophes in the world." When did he ask all of these people that question? Talk about leading your audience. It goes on and on.
After listening to his emotional commentary, do you still think he's a reporter?

And was he even there?

If you watch carefully, there are J and L* cuts during the reporters speech. This proves the video and audio were edited together after the event. You can't cut film live on location mid-sentence.
So many people of today aren't aware that these old newsreels were heavily produced after the fact. Not even close to a live broadcast (which by the way aren't really live). Most likely, they gathered up the footage, put together a nice film, then wrote a script for an actor to read. Sound effects and background audio could be sourced from any event and then added later. There are no interviews or any audio/video synchronicities to prove he was actually there on the scene.

*J and L cuts are where audio and video overlap to conceal a cut between scenes or cameras.

Now watch this propaganda video made later, it's quite transparent about their motives. I think this video pretty much proves you correct. This film appears to be a ploy for the advancement of airplane travel, among other things, ant-Nazi propaganda, etc. The conclusion of the films narrator supports your hypothesis.


This came one year before the great social experiment called, the war of the worlds radio broadcast of 1938.

On a side note.
After I graduated college, I worked briefly as a video editor for CBS news, and all news video content is edited and arranged for the purpose of entertainment. Pleasing an audience. Ratings. Nothing is ever truly "raw footage." Nothing is ever really "live." No story is unbiased. Whoever is able to generate the greatest emotional response in presenting their stories pretty much wins the ratings game. Anger, disgust, sorrow, sympathy, even revenge is sometimes cultivated. Of course, there are rules you play by...
 

dreamtime

Well-known member
Messages
465
Reactions
2,290
Why isn't there a video showing the landing until the explosion? Before the explosion I can't detect anything unusual, in contrast to what the guy says about letting down water it seems to be a normal landing manoevre, or am I wrong?

The cuts and editing could be an indication that no one even died, and they simply destroyed the Hindenburg after the landing and filmed it. Back then it was so simple to fool the public.
 

incognitigo

New member
Messages
1
Reactions
10
Hello everyone,

Forgive me for rushing in here– I’ve just registered after spending many happy hours perusing these threads recently– mainly at night, as I have have had a touch of insomnia recently from giving up sugar.

The Francesco Lana de Terzi quote, that one could use such a vehicle as a weapon of war, and attack cities from air– as “iron weights, fireballs and bombs could be hurled from a great height”, had me curious about the payload potential of these vast vessels.

According to Wikipedia: “Using gasoline alone it was able to cruise for 67 hours, and up to 118 hours using both. The Graf Zeppelin had a total lift capacity of 87,000 kg (192,000 lb) with a usable payload of 15,000 kg (33,000 lb) on a 10,000 km (6,200 mi; 5,400 nmi) flight.”

That’s plenty of cruising time to hover to and from a target area for repeated payload delivery. I’m no engineer, but wouldn’t this be useful in combatting ‘wildfires’? I’m reminded of the cargo aircraft that dump water. I should think a dirigible easy to manoeuvre over and into water, or for fun lets say into a muddy estuary.

I just found this from the UK Daily Mail in 2015:

“The biggest fire-fighting plane ever built: 747 SuperTanker preparing to dump a record 20,000 gallons on wildfires as the battle against blazes in the West costs $100million a week
  • A Boeing 747-400 plane will be converted by Global SuperTanker Services
  • Company says 'most effective aerial firefighting platform in the world' will be able to carry up to 19,600 gallons of retardant or water for 4,000 miles
  • Should surpass capabilities of the 12,000-gallon capacity DC-10 airtanker
  • Will use same tank system as Evergreen International Aviation's 747-100
  • Could fight fires in Oregon, Washington, Idaho, California and Colorado
  • US Forest Service is already spending $100 million a week on the fires”
This image is pulled from the same article (Global SuperTanker Boeing 747-400 will dump even more water on wildfires | Daily Mail Online):

dump.jpg

As I understand, 1 gallon (gal) = 3.785411784 kilogram (kg), so that’s in the region of 45,000 kg equivalent payload (apologies– my regional regime has brainwashed me out of imperial measures). That’s a lot of water, but if Graf Zeppelin had a total lift capacity of 87,000 kg, it makes me wonder how much earth/water one of these could lift? Super tanker, indeed.

Of course, as a stationary aerial platform for any complex weapon, dirigibles might be just the ticket. One can visualise a dystopian future with the skies patrolled by spy-drone-dirigibles. The video game industry is already playing with the theme, in the form of the “Ausmerzer” from the fictional video game 'Wolfenstein – The New Order'. You might enjoy this wiki about the Ausmerzer: Ausmerzer

I would point out to the uninitiated that the game features a Nazi/fascist-style world regime with flying fortresses (at least one that we know of, anyway– the prototype or flagship, perhaps) policing the skies. The name comes from the German verb Ausmerzen – ‘to eradicate’. Delightful stuff, and the game does deliver if you need to fire up your synapses, but I digress.

Screen Shot 2018-12-20 at 20.40.53.png

Thanks very much for bearing with me. I’ll try and infer the form a bit better for any future postings. My most cordial wishes to all curious minds! And a happy holiday season to all.
 

Paracelsus

Well-known member
Messages
295
Reactions
1,188
Was just browsing through RexResearch and came across this:
Edgar HOLMES
Gyradoscope
1545339501431.png

mmx2.jpg

1000 Miles An Hour With Plane Design

By NEA Service Denver - Speeds from 800 to 1000 miles an hour are seen possible through the use of a new device, the "gyradoscope", to replace the propeller of an airplane, according to the inventor of the attachment, Edgar R. Holmes. Holmes asserts that the gyradoscope will double the power thrust of the conventional-type motor and increase air speed of the ordinary plane more than 200 miles an hour without altering the present construction of plane or engine. He hopes to reach from 800 to 1000 miles an hour by special designing of motor and the plane itself.
The Owosso Argus-Press ( 27 October 1932 )

Edgar HOLMES : Gyradoscope - Articles & Patents (circa 1931)
 
OP
trismegistus

trismegistus

Well-known member
Messages
168
Reactions
898
I agree with your view 100%, and I'm very glad you brought up this subject. I think it is critically important in understanding what we see in the media. The event looks suspicious, but the films of it are what had the most impact on society.
When in college I studied film making as my major. We were taught how to break down and investigate film, frame by frame for the purpose of not only seeing how they are made, but to try to understand the motivation behind the decisions we see unfold on the screen.
The psychology of film making.
In some of the classes, we would break down important films of the past and have group discussions, led by our professor, on whether these were news or entertainment, and the effect they had on society and technology. The video of the Hindenburg was discussed as a seminal moment where video footage influenced the thinking of people around the world, and changed the potential path of travel.
This was the first and only disaster many people ever saw back then. It was considered the great tragedy of its time. After all, people back then weren't exposed to violence and disaster like we have been since our youth, and moving images were still new to many. They were only a few years past the silent film era.
This was the most shocking moving image most people ever saw. Most saw it for the first time during a social event, intermission of a film viewing. The evening news had yet to be invented. The first broadcast was still three years in the future (another area of discussion) in 1940. There was no such thing as a documentaries as we know them. All they had was newsreel propaganda to supplement newspapers and radio broadcasts. And people believed it was the truth because it came from the authorities they trusted. They had nothing to compare it with except for the propaganda from the perceived enemy. Opposite sides of the same coin.
It was the films, the way they were reported, edited, then distributed en masse to theatres around the world that created the public response against dirigibles rather than the disaster itself. If people would have just read about it in the paper or heard it on the radio without seeing the broadcast, it would have had minimal impact on society. This is a common discussion in film school. News is propaganda. Propaganda guides society. Film does it best.
Just watch and listen to how he reports this event, what he says, the inflection in his voice, and his emotional response to what's happening around him. Remember, this is supposed to be a live broadcast.


This was heavily edited, and seemed to be scripted as well. There is a video cut at the moment of explosion as well as at least two audio cuts immediately following. The video cuts between two different camera sources with a different exposure to capture the flames. The first frame after the cut is black. Then he describes the scene as if it were a script. He even says at one point "all the folks agree that this is terrible, this is one of the worst catastrophes in the world." When did he ask all of these people that question? Talk about leading your audience. It goes on and on.
After listening to his emotional commentary, do you still think he's a reporter?

And was he even there?

If you watch carefully, there are J and L* cuts during the reporters speech. This proves the video and audio were edited together after the event. You can't cut film live on location mid-sentence.
So many people of today aren't aware that these old newsreels were heavily produced after the fact. Not even close to a live broadcast (which by the way aren't really live). Most likely, they gathered up the footage, put together a nice film, then wrote a script for an actor to read. Sound effects and background audio could be sourced from any event and then added later. There are no interviews or any audio/video synchronicities to prove he was actually there on the scene.

*J and L cuts are where audio and video overlap to conceal a cut between scenes or cameras.

Now watch this propaganda video made later, it's quite transparent about their motives. I think this video pretty much proves you correct. This film appears to be a ploy for the advancement of airplane travel, among other things, ant-Nazi propaganda, etc. The conclusion of the films narrator supports your hypothesis.


This came one year before the great social experiment called, the war of the worlds radio broadcast of 1938.

On a side note.
After I graduated college, I worked briefly as a video editor for CBS news, and all news video content is edited and arranged for the purpose of entertainment. Pleasing an audience. Ratings. Nothing is ever truly "raw footage." Nothing is ever really "live." No story is unbiased. Whoever is able to generate the greatest emotional response in presenting their stories pretty much wins the ratings game. Anger, disgust, sorrow, sympathy, even revenge is sometimes cultivated. Of course, there are rules you play by...

Thank you for the contribution. As you said, the infamous film is pure propaganda. It has all the highlights: presented as real, tugging on emotional heartstrings, actors giving a "real" performance, deep emotional impact, disturbing material, the list goes on.

Its funny, for how awful the crash looked, apparently a majority of the people onboard survived.

Capture.JPG
This was no fluke, the airships by their very design would have lessened fatalities in the event of a disaster. As you can see by the footage, the flames burn in an upwards fashion, away from the cabin underneath. The balloon even goes off kilter for a moment, pointed straight at the sky, but then corrects itself to land flat on the ground. This would give the passengers and crew the opportunity to escape the fires before it enveloped the cabin. And based off the surviving numbers, that was exactly what they were able to do.

Compare this to a modern day plane: if a plane were to catch fire in the sky before landing, there is a strong possibility that plane will not be able to make a normal landing, much less ensure a 60% survival rate. In addition, planes must fly at 20,000+ft above sea level and therefore must be pressurized, adding even more potential dangers to the list of things that can go wrong. On an airship, you are traveling around 500ft above sea level, no pressurization necessary.

If I can get on my soapbox for just a second, I want to point out the hypocrisy of the modern day "green" movement in relation to technology like this. For my entire life, I have been bombarded with propaganda telling me that I won't make it past the age of 50 before human caused climate change will kill me and everyone else I know. Moreover, its my fault because I drive a gasoline car/use compressed air/don't sort my recycling/don't have solar and wind power/etc.

Yet, here we have a safe, luxurious, "green" form of travel that is over 100 years old and no one wants to talk about it seriously. Best you're gonna get is some snide remark about the Hindenburg blowing up as "proof" that if it worked, we'd still be using it. This also proves that the propaganda worked, because it is a cultural meme many years after the film was released. This technology is a threat to modern energy interests, pure and simple.
 
Last edited:

KorbenDallas

Negotiator
Messages
3,410
Reactions
11,730
Speeds from 800 to 1000 miles an hour are seen possible through the use of a new device, the "gyradoscope", to replace the propeller of an airplane, according to the inventor of the attachment, Edgar R. Holmes.
Edgar HOLMES : Gyradoscope - Articles & Patents ( circa 1931 )
I think this gyradoscope deserves its own thread. This thing is insane, and the quoted webpage is missing a bunch of images.

They called it a scam, of course. The following is from eBay, "RARE 1934 Investment Info on New Scam Air Travel Method. American Gyro Company. Four page, folded brochure for the Gyro-Airship by The American Gyro Company, Denver, Colorado. The inventor claims a 2,000 pound machine can lift 500 tons using a new "gyradoscope" technology. It is EX condition. Also includes a two-page transmittal letter that tells how to get ahead financially and a one-page (front and back) testimonials on the company's "dieselators" that are installed on autos for a 50% increase in performance and gas mileage. These two pieces are VG with some soiling. Also a subscription form to invest in the company which has a story on back about a salesman arrested years ago for selling a "telephone" stock."

s-l1600-3.jpgs-l1600-4.jpg
s-l1600-5.jpgs-l1600.jpgs-l1600-1.jpgs-l1600-2.jpgs-l1600-6.jpg
@Paracelsus, if you get a chance, please start a thread on this thing. I think there is way more to it than we are allowed to know. + source.
 

Paracelsus

Well-known member
Messages
295
Reactions
1,188
I think this gyradoscope deserves its own thread. This thing is insane, and the quoted webpage is missing a bunch of images.
I'll create an "Inertial Drive Systems" post later. But, it should be worth mentioning that Zeppelin's weren't exclusively "lighter than air" type crafts. The prevailing thought is that they were only capable of "floating" due to the presence of helium or hydrogen in the gas envelope. However, I'm finding patents going back to the 1930's for gyroscopic propulsion. We are being lied to on a mechanical level what Zeppelin's actually were, and what they were capable of.

You slap a quarter turn Swastika on anything and it gets written out of history.
 
Top