From: Paul Novak <firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2002 12:06:20 -0700 (PDT) Fwd Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 07:07:37 -0400 Subject: Re: Playing With '42 LA UFO Pic - Novak >From: Don Ledger <email@example.com> >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <firstname.lastname@example.org> >Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2002 14:35:37 -0300 >Subject: Re: Playing With '42 LA UFO Pic >"what balloon and where are the reports that they brought down a >balloon or >that it was finally identified as a balloon?" >"Surely someone would have been taken to task over this if it was >a real event?" The balloon in question was noted in "THE ARMY AIR FORCES IN WORLD WAR II; DEFENSE OF THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE". An article available online from the Museum of San Fransisco. The balloon in question I believe was a common flare balloon and these were reported fairly often during the war though whether or not all these reports were correct is unverifiable. Nowhere in any official accounts are there any mentions of any objects being "caught" in the spotlights. Only in the sensationalized versions available from pro ufo sources. The balloon in question is most likely simply responsible for only for beginning the whole affair. Concerning the areas proximity to the ocean and givin that we do not know the prevailing directions of the winds at the time it is concievable that if indeed a balloon was shot down it could easily have ended up in the water never to be found if it was even indeed hit. The battalions on duty had been berated for their lack of response to the previous nights attack on Ellwood Oil Field. A major concern at the time was attack on our west coasts and the Ellwood attack confirmed these worries and intensified them. The public was highly agitated as is evident from various accounts of the period and the reactions to the fiaso by the public afterwards. Even more nervous would be the AAA units and commanders berated for, and responsible for, failing to respond to the previous nights attack. This all resulted in what the Army eventually admitted was probably a case of jittery nerves on the part of it's personell. They were hit with several alerts immediately prior to the event. They were placed on "Green" alert which means "ready to fire". Radar which at the time was notorious for it's unreliability had reported a bogey then lost it. Apparently all it took was a sighting of "something" over the city and all was bedlam thereafter. They were apparently taking no chances. Someone was taken to task, somewhat. The Army. There was much dickering among the different branches of service as to who was responsible. None wished to take responsibility for the event. All sought to distance themselves from direct responsibility and this further fueled the publics anger and resentment as it resulted in conflicting reports from these various branches. This event is not an isolated one. False alarms were recorded many times and have in a few other instances resulted in similar barrages though not as spectacular, or close to home as this. What I find interesting here is the reliance upon the eyewitness accounts. It is clear from one to the other that none are in agreement with the others. So how does this constitute reliable testimony? When even the military observers admitted they were not sure there was even anything to see and in fact made several erroneous reports themselves? I sincerely feel after years of looking into this event that it is not much more than an appropriation and misrepresentation of a confusing military mistake in order to perpetuate a myth. With the finding of the photo clearly showing the difference in the spotlights I now believe this 99%.
[ Next Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp