From: David Acres <email@example.com> Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 23:57:57 +1000 Fwd Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 14:27:35 -0400 Subject: Re: Playing With '42 LA UFO Pic - Acres >From: Paul Novak <firstname.lastname@example.org> >To: email@example.com >Date: Sun, 16 Jun 2002 12:06:20 -0700 (PDT) >Subject: Re: Playing With '42 LA UFO Pic >>From: Don Ledger <firstname.lastname@example.org> >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <email@example.com> >>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. That article is here: http://www.sfmuseum.org/hist9/aaf1.html When was this article written? Was it 1983? Here's the credits from the bottom of the article: "The Army Air Forces in World War II, prepared under the editorship of Wesley Frank Craven, James Lea Cate. v.1, pp. 277- 286, Washington, D.C. : Office of Air Force History : For sale by the Supt. of Docs., U.S. G.P.O., 1983." >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. Maybe not so common Paul? A google serach fo "flare balloon" only returned one relevant article, a patent holding by an Ed Yost # 3,642,400 Illumination Flare/Balloon "Briteye" A search of the USPTO shows this was filed in 1969. Paul, there may have been more than one balloon? I quote the following from above link at SF Museum: "That evening a large number of flares and blinking lights were reported from the vicinity of defense plants. An alert called at 1918 [7:18 p.m., Pacific time]" (This would have been Feb 24) Also from the opening paragraph: "At 0306 a balloon carrying a red flare was seen over Santa Monica" The same article says: "A careful study of the evidence suggests that meteorological balloons-known to have been released over Los Angeles -may well have caused the initial alarm." It seems even the Army was not sure of this balloon or balloons though: "A strong editorial in the Washington Post on 27 February called the handling of the Los Angeles episode a "recipe for jitters," and censured the military authorities for what it called "stubborn silence" in the face of widespread uncertainty. The editorial suggested that the Army's theory that commercial planes might have caused the alert "explains everything except where the planes came from, whither they were going, and why no American planes were sent in pursuit of them." The New York Times Editor had also not been informed of the balloon either:"The New York Times on 28 February expressed a belief that the more the incident was studied, the more incredible it became: "If the batteries were firing on nothing at all, as Secretary Knox implies, it is a sign of expensive incompetence and jitters. If the batteries were firing on real planes, some of them as low as 9,000 feet, as Secretary Stimson declares, why were they completely ineffective?" So why the Army's hesitance to release the balloon news? Why blame it on commercial Aircraft? Sorry! My bullshit detector is buzzing! :) >With >the finding of the photo clearly showing the difference in the >spotlights I now believe this 99%. Maybe that photo will clear the whole thing up? So who have you applied to for that photograph Paul & when do you expect a reply, please?
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp