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.
Haberrmohl, 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 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
f ound evidence for three individ uals 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).
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
49