UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2002 > Jun > Jun 17

Re: Playing With '42 LA UFO Pic - Novak

From: Paul Novak <nib68@yahoo.com>
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 <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >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
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 Main Index

UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp

Archive programming by Glenn Campbell at Glenn-Campbell.com