Talk:West Coast air raid
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
So, who is disputing the content on this page?
Nothing here... so what r u really trying to suggest????
UFO?
Some poeple even think it was a UFO. eh... if its unidentified flying and an object then it is a UFO!
[edit] neutrality
From the edit history, it looks like the POV issue had to do with whether there really were UFOs and/or a cover-up. I think the wording is ok now, although it could use more fact sources. If someone see the article still not neutral, please do use this talk section to point out where. Lisamh 23:39, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
- I don't know if this is the forum for such things, but my grandfather was not only a witness, but the anti-aircraft crew he was assigned to pumped a few hundred .50 caliber machinegun rounds into the thing. My grandfather was the artist Robert Arbuthnot. At the time he was working for a movie studio and because of that he was manning the anti-aircraft guns on top of the studio's soundstages.
- When the "UFO" came close to the studio, my grandfather's anti-aircraft battery gave the thing Hell. One of the gunners was a gentleman nicknamed "The Maestro" because he had been a machinegunner in WWI and he could play his .50 like a violin. Remember that James Cagney gangster film when Cagney ducked behind a brick wall and the wall then disintegrates under machinegun fire? That was the Maestro firing live rounds.
- My grandfather, the Maestro, and the rest of the anti-aircraft battery were firing directly into the UFO at a range of about 50 yards. Bullets were bouncing off and shells were exploding against it. By the time the UFO had flown out of range, the anti-aircraft battery was out of ammunition and the officers in charge were firing their sidearms at it.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Coelacanth1938 (talk • contribs) 11:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Japanese fire balloon
It couldn`t have been a Japanese Fire balloon as the first one was launched in 1944. Hence removed. A remote possibility exists that it was a floatplane from a Japanese submarine (a few of those aircraft-carrying submarines lurked around the US West Coast at the time), though the Japanese records show no such flight took place that day.
Veljko Stevanovich 2. Dec 2006. 12:07 UTC+1
- Also, it seems unlikely that any aircraft produced at the time (and currently??) could have withstood an AA barrage without being destroyed. Even assuming gross inaccuracy, the odds of enough rounds missing the target to let it survive is remote, and the sources in the article suggest the object was hit repeatly. - Doug, 20:23, 28 Jan 2007, UTC
[edit] Photo
I'm curious, has anyone tried to match the apparent spot light sources with the actual recorded AA sites? I presume there still exists a map of some sort to locate where the lights should have been. If the apparent positions match the photo positions, its probable the photo is real, as a "faker" would most probably not have invested the time in matching the light sources to real ones. - Doug, 20:09, 28 Jan 2007 UTC
Further, how advanced was the "science" of photo editing in that time frame (1942)? Would it have been possible to "create" the apparent object on a night time shot of the area? - Doug, 20:17, 28 Jan 2007 UTC