From: Don Ledger <dledger@ns.sympatico.ca>
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 14:24:17 -0300
Fwd Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 17:21:58 -0400
Subject: Re: Blimps - Ledger


 >From: GT McCoy <gtmccoy@harborside.com>
 >To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 12:55:06 -0700
 >Subject: Re: Blimps

 >>From: Alfred Lehmberg <Lehmberg@snowhill.com>
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Date: Mon, 17 Jun 2002 08:02:55 -0500
 >>Subject: Re: Blimps

 >>From: GT McCoy <gtmccoy@harborside.com>
 >>To: <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >>Subject: Blimps
 >>Date: Thu, 13 Jun 2002 14:57:45 -0700

 >>Hello All,

 >>Daivd Acres, in a preivous post, wondered when Blimps came into
 >>existence. Here it is, a long withthe general history of
 >>Airships:

 >>http://www.worldwar1.com/sfzepp.htm

 >Yep, good point, the USA is the Saudi Arabia
 >of Helium.

 >>Assuming these objects over Los Angeles in 1942 were Japanese
 >>Terror Blimps (JTBs), where did they get the non-flammable
 >>helium necessary to keep them in the air?  Hydrogen blimps would
 >>have handily exploded in the well documented onslaught of
 >>American guns.

 >Exactly.

 >>The Germans had given up on blimps as a result of not being able
 >>to acquire helium from the United States just a few year prior
 >>to 1942, and if the Germans (with greater resources) couldn't
 >>get the stuff, how did the Japanese, with a much _smaller_
 >>sphere of necessary resources and raw materials, get an
 >>abundance of it?

 >>snip<

 >Using balloons for target practice is one thing, simply going
 >nuts is another. Yes there was good reason the military was
 >jumpy as the Japanese had attacked Astoria, Oregon with the
 >coast artillery  nearly sinking Ilwaco (across the river)
 >Washington. The only battery capable of sinking the Japanese
 >sub,( a Spanish American war era anti ship mortar as I recall, )
 >was not able to fire due to a lack of command (in town at a
 >movie) authority.

 >The I-19 series subs raised Hob with shipping on the west coast,
 >there are several wrecks off the southern oregon coast. The fear
 >of invasion was palpable, but, I don't think that there was
 >nothing there on that night there are enough sightings of
 >somthing to make an argument that they were not shooting at thin
 >air.

 >One thing. Hydrogen, despite the fearsome reputation is not
 >readly flammable, you'd need an incidiary or tracer round to
 >ingnite a balloon filled with the gas. If the Hindenburg was
 >filed with gasoline Lakehurst N.J. would now not exist.

 >In all probability, The Hindenburg was killed due to it's doped
 >fabric, likely a nitrate dope, in fact a study by researchers on
 >the dope - paint - showed it to be simular in composition to ah,
 >_rocket fuel_


Hi GT,

And regarding your last comment. The Germans themselves knew
that the doped fabric was the real culprit not three months
after the disaster. The American investigator who did a study on
this a few years back eventually found the report which had been
buried by the German inquiry after it had been completed.

What tipped-off the American investigator that the hydrogen
wasn't burning was the fact that the nose rose upward while the
outer envelope was burning off the doped fabric and lightening
the structure. He mentioned in the video that all the times he'd
seen that film he'd never taken note of the nose of the
Hindenburg rising upward after it had crashed and while the
hydrogen was supposedly burning - an impossibility.

Observation is everything. He went looking for the German report
after he had determined that the doped fabric was the
problem. Someone had gotten hold of a piece of the Hindenburg's
fabric after the disaster and the investigator was able to get a
piece to analyze. That's when he discovered the volatility of
the doping compound.

I wonder if later on during the war one of those German
investigators might have gone to Von Braun and said, "Here, try
this stuff".


Best,

Don