From: Paul Novak <firstname.lastname@example.org> Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 18:41:58 -0700 (PDT) Fwd Date: Wed, 19 Jun 2002 22:40:00 -0400 Subject: Re: Blimps - Novak >From: Jan Aldrich <email@example.com> >To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <firstname.lastname@example.org> >Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 10:23:57 -0400 >Subject: Re: Blimps >"There was not just one object involved in the incident. Multiple >objects were involved." This has not been verified or cooborated by any reliable sources. All mentions of various objects being sighted save the red flare balloon are at hopeless variance with eachother. So how does anyone know which ones are even accurate much less indicative of something actually being sighted? There was a report of 25 planes which the same CMDR who made the report later recanted as he felt he was mistaken. There was another report of 9 planes, unverified. And still more reports of whole squadrons. Yet none are verifiable and many military observers state that they saw nothing in the sky save flak from the shelling. The eyewitness accounts are at such extreme variance it is impossible to give any of them more than cursory consideration as no clear indications can be gleaned from them. >"The incident starts off with the Navy giving the alert. (How did >the Navy know something was up? Radar? Observations from picket >ships? None of this is clear.) The alarm was sounded because the radar blip was tracked moving close in to the shoreline. When noticed within what appeared to be 120 miles of west of Los Angeles the anti aircraft batteries were put on ready to fire status by the Navy. When the radar indicated the blip was within a few miles of the coast the blackout was ordered. At this point it must be remembered the prevailing emotional status of the populace and personell involved at the time. The AAA units had been berated for their earlier lack of response in the submarines attack on Ellwood. The military was convinced, and had this confirmed with the sub attack the previous night, that an attack on the coast was a strong possibility. The public, having endured all of this also with the exception of the AAA units reprimands, was also primed for an event with further successions of alerts. After the blackout numerous sightings were reported none of which were confirmed or cooborated and many of which are shown to be wholly false. And these sightings of planes were reported despite radar having lost the target. The only ones who appear to have acted in a cautious, and in hindsight correct manner was the Army Air Force who waited for confirmation before committing itself to action. Now given the evident and repeatedly noted intensity of concern and "invasion hysteria" it is reasonable to consider that little was needed to set in motion the ensuing debacle. And this initial momentum could very well have been the red flare balloon which appears to be considered by the documentation to be fairly accurately verified. Interesting though that no visual confrimations were made before putting the AAA batteries on alert. This was common and almost mandatory prctice according to Encyc, Brittanica due to early radars strong tendency for mistakes and the lack of well trained operators to use such a then new tool. This to me is another indication of military ineptness in this incident. >"Large amounts of ammo were expended against the object in the >photograph. These were the day before the proximity fuse, so a >direct hit or hit by flak dispersed at pre-determined altitudes >was necessary. In the case of a balloon penetration should have >brought it down." Yes such a hit should have brought a balloon down but it should also be noted there are almost no mentions of balloons being found at all during the war. Again, given the proximity to water and not knowing the prevailing winds or their strength it is possible a balloon could have ended up wet and never found. Also, the photograph in question is a snapshot of one moment in time. What would we see if it were film? Would we see an "object" caught in the lights? Or would we see lights criss crossing the sky searching for a target? I suspect the latter strongly and feel that a large part of the eth proposal is based upon using this photograph which happend to be taken at a moment when they converged as proof that an "object" was caught in them. This is another reason I feel it is so important to reveal the truth regarding the photo. It is almost a certainty in my mind that it has been doctored. Why doctored? The answer is easy. To help support a misrepresented story biased towards et. >"The Japanese did have aircraft which could be launched from >submarines. One such craft bombed Oregon during the same time >frame." I-17 CDR Nishino in a later interview stated that he did not launch any planes or balloons. They fired at what they thought was the city but in reality was the oil field and promptly left fearing the appearance of allied ships.
[ Next Message | Previous Message | This Day's Messages ]
This Month's Index |
UFO UpDates - Toronto - Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp