While many in the UFO community think the February 24-25th, 1942 incident where the United State Army allegedly had a battle with a UFO over the Pacific Ocean just off the coast of Los Angeles…
…the thing that was fired upon was a Japanese balloon, as explained in this paragraph from a 1947 report about balloons during the 1942 time-frame:
Here’s a PDF copy of the full 1947 report, from our UFO web-site:
Controlled-Altitude Free Balloons
.
9 comments:
Mornin' Rich, et al,
First, let me point out that the analogous description i.e., "'Battle'" of Los Angeles" that has been associated with the incident of February 1924-25 is inaccurate!
The term, "battle" indicates a conflict between two or more individuals or groups; to date, no evidence has surfaced to indicate any offensive actions by the object that was being fired on.
Moreover, I'm afraid you're traveling down a very familiar path; however, "no balloon," then or now can withstand direct hits from 3" anti-aircraft fire; additionally, the only (known) objects of that era," capable of flight that were similar in "size and shape" were "dirigibles" (e.g., the Macon, Akron etc.); however, the same problem exists, as with the balloon theory--they couldn't withstand the barrage that was executed that night! For that matter, we nor our enemies then or "now" have anything in the inventory that was/is capable of such a feat!
One final note: the first launch of the Habuti silk balloons wasn't until two years later in 1944.(It measured just "under 30'" diameter).
Cheers,
Frank
Thank you, Frank:
We know you're an expert when it comes to the L.A. incident.
The report we link to indicates that balloons were sent to the west coast of the United States in 1941, 1942, and so forth.
The balloon you refer to has been brought to our attention by Tony Bragalia, but the balloon we cite, as listed in the PDF we found, was not the balloon that the 1944 citation you (and others) use to defuse the balloon theory.
The barrage of fire power did not reach the balloon we see as the intruder, and much of that ordnance ended up in the ocean, as General Marshall's letter to Roosevelt stated.
Also, we're not referring to Fugo balloons either, as you will see from the PDF we've provided.
If the "object" seen and which made the Army hysterical was a UFO, it surely resembled the balloons and their behavior that our 1947 (PDF) report cite.
RR
Rich,
you wrote:
The report we link to indicates that balloons were sent to the west coast of the United States in 1941, 1942, and so forth.
Pardon my duncery; however, I'm not seeing the dates you cite attributed to the Japanese . . . could you indicate the paragraph and page please?
you wrote:
The balloon you refer to has been brought to our attention by Tony Bragalia, but the balloon we cite, as listed in the PDF we found, was not the balloon that the 1944 citation you (and others) use to defuse the balloon theory.
The "type" of balloon is irrelevant, as no balloon could or can withstand direct hits by 3" AA rounds.
you wrote:
The barrage of fire power did not reach the balloon we see as the intruder, and much of that ordnance ended up in the ocean, as General Marshall's letter to Roosevelt stated.
I'm afraid you're incorrect. A 3" AA round could and did surpass the reported altitude of the object, and in part you've posted the evidence of this at the top of the page. AS you can see the UFO is enveloped by anti-aircraft fire.
you wrote:
Also, we're not referring to Fugo balloons either, as you will see from the PDF we've provided.
Again no matter--no balloon could survive 3 hours of AA fire!
you wrote:
If the "object" seen and which made the Army hysterical was a UFO, it surely resembled the balloons and their behavior that our 1947 (PDF) report cite.
Again I have to respectfully disagree; the object in question was elliptical in shape, and over 800' wide, (based on my research and Bruce Maccabee's math) and was intelligently controlled; it changed directions and traveled against the wind as well as being able to increase its altitude.
On a final note, one of the reasons that the incident was painted with hysteria is the notion that people saw planes when there weren't any--this is a falsehood, as our planes were in the air, as naturally they would be given the circumstances, and particularly so after what happened in Pearl.
Cheers,
Frank
Frank:
I've copied the paragraphs from our PDF document that designates the Japanese balloons were sent during WWII to the west coast of the U.S.
The copies can be seen by browsing
http://ufos.homestead.com/JB-A.jpg
and
http://ufos.homestead.com/JB-B.jpg
The key point is that the balloons stayed aloft and in situ for hours and/or a few days, as the 1947 research paper indicates.
The hysteria of the Army was palpable, as media accounts noted.
The shooting-at situation was hardly organized or sensible.
We discount Maccabee's measurements as he once thought the Gulf Breeze UFOs were anything but a hoax.
Bruce is a nice guy, just a bit off when it comes to UFO measurement as was the case with the Trent photos (per Sheaffer) and his favorite Australian case.
The 800 foot observation isn't a viable fact, just an opinion, and an unscientific one to boot.
But we can allow that what sneaked up on L.A. was a bona fide UFO.
However, our preference is for the balloon scenario, as it fits the practices of the Japanese at the time, and the thing shot at eventually disappeared; it didn't fly away -- it was just gone, shot down perhaps, or exploded by one of those miracle bullets that your G.I.s got to the thing.
RR
Rich,
You wrote:
I've copied the paragraphs from our PDF document that designates the Japanese balloons were sent during WWII to the west coast of the U.S.
The copies can be seen by browsing
http://ufos.homestead.com/JB-A.jpg
and
http://ufos.homestead.com/JB-B.jpg
Thank you! I did in fact absorb those paragraphs; however, I didn't and don't see anything in them that "verifies" the time line you cited previously:
The report we link to indicates that balloons were sent to the west coast of the United States in 1941, 1942, and so forth.
The only reference to time (that I see) is where the author writes:
". . . use of balloons by the Japanese in the last war . . ."
You wrote:
The key point is that the balloons stayed aloft and in situ for hours and/or a few days, as the 1947 research paper indicates.
Those points may be "key"; however, not to this argument, as they don't address any of the attributes of the UFO . . . quite the opposite in fact.
You wrote:
The hysteria of the Army was palpable, as media accounts noted.
The shooting-at situation was hardly organized or sensible.
Methinks how the PTB propagandized just what occurred is more to do with the reaction of our defensive forces then the reality of it.
"Hysteria" is more palatable if in fact there was nothing there; on the other hand, the evidence suggests that not only was there something there, it was huge and impervious to anti-aircraft fire. Some might argue that the response was apropos to the threat.
You wrote:
We discount Maccabee's measurements as he once thought the Gulf Breeze UFOs were anything but a hoax.
Bruce is a nice guy, just a bit off when it comes to UFO measurement as was the case with the Trent photos (per Sheaffer) and his favorite Australian case.
The 800 foot observation isn't a viable fact, just an opinion, and an unscientific one to boot.
Bruce certainly is a "nice guy," and I don't believe he was "off" in regards to the "Trent issue"; however that is another can of worms.
Moreover to condemn a man's work in it's entirety or one element of it, because you disagree with his conclusion(s) is nonsensical, and not scientific.
Additionally, although Gulf Breeze isn't one of my pet cases, I know enough to state emphatically that it was certainly more then just a hoax.
Moreover, "the methodology (measurement) is mine"; the "solution" to a mathematical problem was provided by Bruce, based on the factors I provided. "Mathematics is science" the last time I checked, and the 800' diameter is based on that, "not opinion."
You wrote:
But we can allow that what sneaked up on L.A. was a bona fide UFO.
However, our preference is for the balloon scenario, as it fits the practices of the Japanese at the time, and the thing shot at eventually disappeared; it didn't fly away -- it was just gone, shot down perhaps, or exploded by one of those miracle bullets that your G.I.s got to the thing.
I'm afraid you're mistaken (again). It did in fact "fly away" in the direction it came I might add. Moreover, FUGOS "were shot down," (when they were used years later) quite easily for that matter. Again, "one shot" would have taken a balloon down, much less 3 hours worth of "3 inch anti-aircraft rounds."
By the way, the balloon description in the article you cite is not dissimilar to FUGOS; the paper being made being made by the Japanese Army (Type A), and the rubber coated silk (Type B) made by their Navy.
Finally, unless you've renounced your citizenship, those were "our G.I.'s."
Cheers,
Frank
Now, now Frank...
Don't get churlish because I'm tweaking one of your pet UFO episodes.
The L.A. incident, like Roswell, and almost all other flying saucer events, is open to conjecture, even though you've mustered a rather good number of items in your favor.
The L.A. object may be defined as UFO - unidentified you know what - but it still remains an enigmatic affair.
I think the balloon possibility has legs. You do not.
Let's see if we can find more about the 1942 sighting and call-to-arms.
It's an intriguing case, that's for sure.
Always the best to you my good friend, and more than able debater.
RR
Rich,
You wrote:
Now, now Frank...
Don't get because I'm tweaking one of your pet UFO episodes.
My apologies if that's my impression, as it's certainly not my intent . . . which is only to be direct and to the point in offering my counterpoints.
You wrote:
The L.A. incident, like Roswell, and almost all other flying saucer events, is open to conjecture, even though you've mustered a rather good number of items in your favor.
No argument here.
You wrote:
The L.A. object may be defined as UFO - unidentified you know what - but it still remains an enigmatic affair.
That which defines it as "enigmatic" is what negates your theorem, e.g., enormous size, unfamiliar shape, maneuverability (at slow speeds), seemingly impenetrable by anti-aircraft fire. Let us not forget the post cover-up of the facts as well.
You wrote:
I think the balloon possibility has legs. You do not.
This is a very old argument Rich, starting with . . . you guessed it, "a weather balloon."
The "Japanese balloon" theory is dead on its face on many levels, starting with the same "for any balloon" which is it's susceptibility to defensive measures.
You wrote:
Let's see if we can find more about the 1942 sighting and call-to-arms.
It's an intriguing case, that's for sure.
Why not start with the "1941 sightings?" Perhaps there connected . . ..
You wrote:
Always the best to you my good friend, and more than able debater.
RR
Backatcha! One's "debating ability" improves with knowledge and practice to which I have more then a moderate amount of both concerning this case.
Unchurlishly Yours,
Frank
If that was really a balloon made by humans, then do we have an aircraft now that is 3" bullet proof and can withstand 3 hours firing?
Just a thought... :)
No way, that it was a balloon...
3hours of 3" AA fire could destroy almost anything. Check it out on youtube, if you don't believe.
Massive thing.. http://www.antiaircraft.org/3inch.htm
Post a Comment