UFO UpDates
A mailing list for the study of UFO-related phenomena
'Its All Here In Black & White'
Location: UFOUpDatesList.Com > 2002 > Jun > Jun 18

Re: Playing With '42 LA UFO Pic - Novak

From: Paul Novak <nib68@yahoo.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 15:53:59 -0700 (PDT)
Fwd Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 09:17:25 -0400
Subject: Re: Playing With '42 LA UFO Pic - Novak


 >From: David Acres <dacres@austarnet.com.au>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 23:57:57 +1000
 >Subject: Re: Playing With '42 LA UFO Pic

 >"So why the Army's hesitance to release the balloon
 >news? Why blame it on commercial Aircraft?"


As I noted, none of the various military branches wished to take
responsibility. Each sought to blame the other.

The secretary of the Navy Fank Knox stated it was a false alarm
and that no planes were confirmed. Secretary Stimson claimed
there were probably planes yet had no concrete answers as to
their origins or why they were never affected by the barrage.

But it should be noted that the efforts of these branches from
all appearances were geared towards hiding that they were
shooting at nothing or blaming the others for allowing a false
alarm to escalate to such proportions. Not that they couldn't
shoot down a UFO.

The balloon theory is just that. A guess based on the fact that
these were known to be used and had been seen before and one was
sighted prior to the barrage. Just as the commercial planes
explanation was also a 'guess'. But much more likely is that
these were excuses offered simply to try placating an upset
public and hide the fact that they royally screwed up although I
tend to favor a flare balloon being responsible for setting off
the incident.

For all we know, one excitable artillery commander could have
given the order for his group to fire upon seeing the flare
balloon and voila, a fiasco of epic proportions. I doubt the
military would have been willing to give such an explanation
though considering their efforts to keep the publics confidence
in their ability to defend them. Also of note is that the last
thing the military would have like publicized was that the west
coast was defended by apparently inexperienced and nervous
battalions. The Japanese would have welcomed such news eh?

I would like to note that further relevant material can be found
on the pages linked below, if you have not already checked.

 >From THE ARMY AIR FORCES IN WORLD WAR II....

http://www.sfmuseum.org/hist9/aaf1.html


"As these and other forces took up their defensive positions,
coastal communities suffered from an "invasion fever" which
first showed itself with the calling of an alert in San
Francisco on 8 December...."

"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? Why did no American planes go
up to engage them, or even to identify them?... What would have
happened if this had been a real air raid?" These questions were
appropriate, but for the War Department to have answered them in
full frankness would have involved an even more complete
revelation of the weakness of our air defenses...."

"The many alerts of this period reflect the inexperience of both
the public and the defense forces. To some critics they
indicated a deliberate attempt by the Army to frighten the
public in order to stimulate interest in war preparations.
Before accepting this view, however, it should be noted that
many of the reports of unidentified aircraft, leading to
precautionary blackouts, resulted from mechanical difficulties
with new radar equipment and from the understandable mistakes of
inadequately trained personnel...."


I would also like to point out this. The radar had a blip which
dissappeared. And AFTER it disappeared people reported seeing
planes. The numbers of which varied wildly. So if there were
planes as the witnesses claimed why were they not showing on the
radar? This I feel is a further indication that nothing was
indeed there to seen.

 >"Maybe not so common Paul?"

Concerning my hasty assumption regarding flare balloons.

Military flares themselves were and are very common in many
forms predominantly parachute flares used to illuminate targets.

I concede balloon flares may not have been as common as to be
considered extensively used. But it is documented that
meteorlogical balloons carrying candles and flares were
routinely used and also that flare balloons were believed to be
used by the japanese to test enemy air defenses. The latter is
yet another speculation by the military as to the origin of the
red flare carrying balloon mentioned in the article. Coupled
with the fact that the japanese submarine I17 was present from
the 20th through the 23-24th and shelled the oil field it is not
an unreasonable speculation. Unfortunately most mentions of them
I have found are as side notes in various articles regarding the
world wars.

There was plenty of BS it appears, but more as a result of
paranoia, nervousness, and passing the buck to avoid
responsibility it would appear. This seems apparent to me from
the different explanations given by the Navy and Army, the
change in explanations by the Army, and the finger pointing done
by the Army and Navy.

I have contacted the LA Times and am waiting to find out if a
reproduction of the original print before it was published is
possible and what the fee will be. I suppose I may need to
contact them again, maybe in writing or by phone. I tried a year
ago and if I remember correctly was told it would be fairly
expensive but I never followed up.

I have also contacted a dealer in historic newspapers within the
past two days but doubt this will prove worthwhile as it appears
the newspapers printed copy also shows the spotlights abruptly
cutoff. Why the photo would have been retouched in this manner
is also a mystery. As soon as, and if I have a copy in my
possession it will be made available. I'm all for others
attempting to locate one as I have been trying for some time to
obtain one and it is not in the least proving to be an easy
undertaking.

But I do myself think it would do much to at the least satisfy
the questions of just what is shown in the photo and "was it
truly altered?" once a viable copy is available.




[ 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