From: Paul Novak <email@example.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 <firstname.lastname@example.org> >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.
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp