From: Paul Novak <nib68@yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 15:40:15 -0700 (PDT)
Fwd Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 21:37:13 -0400
Subject: Re: Blimps - Novak


 >From: Alfred Lehmberg <Lehmberg@snowhill.com>
 >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <ufoupdates@virtuallystrange.net>
 >Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 08:56:45 -0500
 >Subject: Re: Blimps

This is the only time I will adress this sort of veiled
duplicity Mr Lehmberg. Further posts of a similar nature, i.e.
irrelevant and antagonizing, will be ignored. I realize being
skeptical invites animosity but I find there is no need to allow
it to taint and distort rational discussion. I am a new arrival
here and would much rather discuss the issues at hand before
allowing myself to become embroiled in any "believer",
"skeptibunker" arguments.

 >That was not the issue, Mr. Novak. Nowhere was it remotely
 >intimated by me that they did not. That they did not likely have
 >easy access to helium and so provide for balloons that would
 >not, readily, explode, was.

Perhaps if you had been clear in just what you were intimating
it would not have been neccessary to make my own deductions?

You stated....

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

This can easily be interpreted to mean that not only did you
feel helium was unavailable but that hydrogen would not be used.
Therefore it appears you insinuate that the Japanese would not
have been willing, therefore "capable" of using balloons or
"blimps" which you for no apparent reason, decided to assume in
your hypothesis was the culprit. Myself and others apparently
made the same deduction and provided you with evidence via
precedent that Japan had, and used, hydrogen for lighter than
air craft which you quite obviously appear to imply they would
not. I see no fault with my post and find it's entirely relevant
to yours.

And not only this but you also stated.

 >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?

Which is another apparent mistaken assumption on your part which
is also what I myself was addressing. It is clear you were
assuming Japan had no means, or any they were willing to use
such as hydrogen, for lighter than aircraft. You were mistaken
and I sought to point this out and did. My apologies if this
makes you uncomfortable.

If you agree there is no basis to assume a blimp was present
then why bother hypotheticaly speaking as if one were? Is this
what could also be considered as attempting to misdirect the
discussion as you accuse others of doing? It appears as though
it is as it is entirely irrelevant though it was regardless,
graciously addressed and corrected by myself and others here.

 >Is this to(sic) suggest that, perhaps, something did?

Of course not and this is another somewhat vague attempt to bait
and misdirect. It was quite simply a statement of the obvious
regarding the wholly unfounded assumption that a blimp was
responsible. It was meant to point out the absurdity of such an
assumption while trying to keep the point being made
inoffensive.

Your carefully worded paragraph regarding secrecy and suspicion
is to me a standard attempt to link government secrecy with the
proof needed to validate beliefs. It appears as simply another
assumption that "since the government is hiding something they
must be hiding the proof that we are looking for". Albeit it is
carefuly crafted in this instance to disguise this insinuation
and remain within the realm of acceptable speculation.

But such an idea is also without foundation and in all reality
the evidence sought quite likely just does not exist.

How pointing out the massive inconsistencies in the story and
the available information which has led to and supports my
tentative conclusion is "garden variety skeptibunkery" is not at
all clear. Even less clear is how this can validate your
suspicions. Again I am forced to interpret your meaning which I
suspect may be your intention. Because I find the material leads
me to a different position on the subject means yours is the
more valid? This is illogical and without any apparent basis for
serious consideration.

 >"A point not germane to the discussion, but
 >distractingly true none-the-less; no point here."

The whole post was entirely relevant to the assertions and
assumptions that you brought to the discussion. It revealed why
your entire post was without merit and had no basis in fact. It
demonstrated the errors in your points. That it took time and
for us to address them and led away from the topic at hand is
wholly of your own doing as you are responible for bringing them
into the discussion.

Mr. Lehmberg. I have read your posts to others after reading
your replies to me and find that you are somewhat disingenuous
in your statements. Please remain with the topic at hand if you
wish to avoid these irrelevant tangents.