It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

67 Years Ago Today: 15 UFOs Approached The Golden Gate!

page: 3
5
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 10 2008 @ 09:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Frank Warren
We also know the general activities of the "I" submarines and on the 8th of December (the day after Pearl Harbor) they were out looking for the aircraft carriers they missed at Pearl. True by the "end of the month" they would be parked off the west coast. This discounts the notion that the UFOs could could have been "Glen's"


Doing a bit of research, I found that I-26 sunk the Cynthia Olson 300 nmi off the coast of California on December 7, 1941. I-10 was sent to the West Coast of the US before the attack on Pearl Harbor.

Where was the closest aircraft carrier, or vessel able to launch an aircraft, when this incident happened? I noticed in an article on the December 8 incident that the planes "vanished to the Southwest." By coincidence, that is the direction of Hawaii from San Francisco, the direction any Japanese vessels would approach from.

I wonder how much of this story was due to invasion-hysteria that set in after Pearl Harbor. There were accounts of Japanese vessels spotted parked inside the Bay, or just off the coast; we know now these reports were not true. Considering this, how reliable are the reports there were 15 planes spotted?

[edit on 10-12-2008 by SaviorComplex]



posted on Dec, 10 2008 @ 09:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by easynow
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 



The aircraft were in fact spotted, hence the article's tiltle "15 Unidentified craft Sighted"

And this wasn't swept under the rug. It was reported. It was talked about. A newspaper article was written. I'm sure the military was on the lookout for more aircraft. What more do you want?


something was spotted no doubt, but doesn't the words 'unidentified' mean anything to you ? to me it means they don't really know what it was.

from what i have read so far the witnesses heard planes but NONE were seen.

please post the official military documents that show these craft were in fact identified since your so eager to argue about what i said.


I was replying to your assertion that the aircraft were heard but not seen, That is false. The original article clearly states that they were seen.

And yes, they were unidentified. But so what? They were called "unidentified" because the observers could not see the markings on them or identify what type of aircraft they were (e.g., Japanese bomber, etc). I think it would be inaccurate to call them Japanese planes if nobody got a good enough look at them to identify them as such. It would be irresposible for the military to say they were Japanese planes if they did not see them well enough to identify them.

The military can't tell the public "I GUESS they were Japanese". The military needs to make a positive ID before they tell the public that they were Japanese aircraft.

And since, as the General in the article said, they were not Army or Navy (since we knew where all of our Army and Navy planes were) and they were probably not civilian planes (civilian planes in San Francisco were grounded the day after Pearl Harbor), the aircraft would officially be "unidentified".

What is so newsworthy 67 years later about a group of unidentified aircraft during wartime? And what makes this something the the ATS Aliens and UFOs forum should care about?

My interpretation of this newspaper article is this:

- 15 aircraft were spotted.
- They could not be identified as to who they belonged to before they turned back.
- We knew they weren't U.S. Navy or Army (because we knew our own planes' schedules and flightpaths).
- Since they weren't seen well enough to identify them as Japanese, and we knew they weren't ours, they are officially classified as "unidentified" -- as well they should be.

Like I said before, this seems to be much ado about nothing.

I'm not saying the threat of a Japanese attack was not important at that time, but since this article seems only to be about a group of unidentified planes that approached San Francisco during wartime, this is hardly fodder for this forum.

[edit on 12/10/2008 by Soylent Green Is People]



posted on Dec, 10 2008 @ 10:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
What is so newsworthy 67 years later about a group of unidentified aircraft during wartime? And what makes this something the the ATS Aliens and UFOs forum should care about?


Because the word unidentified was used, people want to assume that it means unexplained or extraterrestrial. And some people, like the OP, want to play games and insult our intelligence by trying to claim they aren't saying aliens were not behind this. I'm sorry, that may be a bit harsh, but otherwise it would not be posted in here and we would not be having this discussion.

I do not think it is much ado about nothing. People are discovering a little-known piece of history; I've managed to learn a lot in the research I've done into this. However, I do think people are stretching it and twisting at straws.

[edit on 10-12-2008 by SaviorComplex]



posted on Dec, 10 2008 @ 10:34 AM
link   
reply to post by SaviorComplex
 

I agree that from a WWII historical perspective this is quite interesting...I mean it's much ado about nothing in the context of this forum.



posted on Dec, 11 2008 @ 12:32 PM
link   
Mornin' SaviorComplex,

Originally posted by SaviorComplex

Originally posted by Frank Warren
We also know the general activities of the "I" submarines and on the 8th of December (the day after Pearl Harbor) they were out looking for the aircraft carriers they missed at Pearl. True by the "end of the month" they would be parked off the west coast. This discounts the notion that the UFOs could could have been "Glen's"



Doing a bit of research, I found that I-26 sunk the Cynthia Olson 300 nmi off the coast of California on December 7, 1941. I-10 was sent to the West Coast of the US before the attack on Pearl Harbor.


The Cynthia Olson was sunk 1000 miles northeast of the Hawaiian Islands, according to the I-26 commander Minoru Yakota. Moreover, "all" of the available subs were near Hawaii in support of the attacking ships on and or close to December 7th. True, towards the end of the month they would patrol off the coast; however anti-submarines activity curtailed that threat (and planned attack); the I-10 was stationed off the coast of San Diego; this according to the General Headquarters Far East Command.


Where was the closest aircraft carrier, or vessel able to launch an aircraft, when this incident happened? I noticed in an article on the December 8 incident that the planes "vanished to the Southwest." By coincidence, that is the direction of Hawaii from San Francisco, the direction any Japanese vessels would approach from.


There were no aircraft carriers "close enough" to the mainland to launch planes. Moreover, if in fact that were possible, they certainly would not have gone on a sight seeing mission--an attack would have occurred!


I wonder how much of this story was due to invasion-hysteria that set in after Pearl Harbor. There were accounts of Japanese vessels spotted parked inside the Bay, or just off the coast; we know now these reports were not true. Considering this, how reliable are the reports there were 15 planes spotted?


I think the "invasion-hysteria element" has to be considered; however, in absorbing many accounts of the event, I believe that there is enough data to support the notion that there were in fact "unidentified craft" that flew into the Bay Area on the 8th.

Cheers,
Frank



posted on Dec, 11 2008 @ 01:18 PM
link   
Mornin' SGIP,


Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People

Originally posted by easynow
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 



The aircraft were in fact spotted, hence the article's tiltle "15 Unidentified craft Sighted"

And this wasn't swept under the rug. It was reported. It was talked about. A newspaper article was written. I'm sure the military was on the lookout for more aircraft. What more do you want?


something was spotted no doubt, but doesn't the words 'unidentified' mean anything to you ? to me it means they don't really know what it was.

from what i have read so far the witnesses heard planes but NONE were seen.

please post the official military documents that show these craft were in fact identified since your so eager to argue about what i said.





What is so newsworthy 67 years later about a group of unidentified aircraft during wartime? And what makes this something the the ATS Aliens and UFOs forum should care about?


This particular event for the most part is unknown in the realm of Ufology; not to long ago BOLA (the Battle of Los Angles) held the same status; many of the reports regarding the latter were initially attributed to enemy "planes" or a "plane"; I can assure you that the "object" encapsulated by the searchlight beams in the photograph that dawned the front page of the LA Times the next day was not a plane!

In this instance, 6 weeks earlier, we find similar reports i.e., unidentified planes, (presumed to be the enemy ([by the commanders on site] through process of elimination) which precipitated a blackout . . . a very similar scenario. Additionally, like BOLA, the PTB lied about the event in the aftermath.

Additionally, prior to the "labels" UFOs, Flying Saucers or Flying Discs, people associated unknown aerial objects to "known" objects in the vernacular of the day, i.e., mystery planes, airships, aerial contrivances, bollides etc.

Finally, although "most" UFO reports "after research and investigation" can be explained by a conventional or natural cause, they must first be examined; this incident has yet to be explained; hence the the reason to put a report of "unidentified craft" in a "unidentified flying object" forum.


My interpretation of this newspaper article is this:

- 15 aircraft were spotted.
- They could not be identified as to who they belonged to before they turned back.
- We knew they weren't U.S. Navy or Army (because we knew our own planes' schedules and flightpaths).
- Since they weren't seen well enough to identify them as Japanese, and we knew they weren't ours, they are officially classified as "unidentified" -- as well they should be.

Like I said before, this seems to be much ado about nothing.


This is exactly the point! At the time the military (on site) knew what they "couldn't be," leaving in their mind, through process of elimination that they had to be the enemy . . . we know of course that's not the case. Moreover, we sent sent our planes up, as well as search vessels off the coast, yet the unidentified aircraft couldn't be found or explained. Thus leaving the PTB to say it was just a "test!" This the day after the attack on Pearl Harbor . . . puh-lease!


I'm not saying the threat of a Japanese attack was not important at that time, but since this article seems only to be about a group of unidentified planes that approached San Francisco during wartime, this is hardly fodder for this forum.


Aside from BOLA, a few years into the war "Foo Fighters" were attributed to a "new secret enemy aircraft"; it wasn't till after the war we found out that the enemy was experiencing the same thing. A few years after that, Kenneth Arnold's sighting would be passed of as "military aircraft" as well as many other sightings across this country as well as others.

Cheers,
Frank



posted on Dec, 11 2008 @ 01:34 PM
link   
SaviorComplex, SG,


Originally posted by SaviorComplex

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
What is so newsworthy 67 years later about a group of unidentified aircraft during wartime? And what makes this something the the ATS Aliens and UFOs forum should care about?


Because the word unidentified was used, people want to assume that it means unexplained or extraterrestrial. And some people, like the OP, want to play games and insult our intelligence by trying to claim they aren't saying aliens were not behind this. I'm sorry, that may be a bit harsh, but otherwise it would not be posted in here and we would not be having this discussion.

I do not think it is much ado about nothing. People are discovering a little-known piece of history; I've managed to learn a lot in the research I've done into this. However, I do think people are stretching it and twisting at straws.

[edit on 10-12-2008 by SaviorComplex]


Being the OP, I initiate threads that interest me personally, and that I feel will be interesting to most members in this sub-category (UFOs & Aliens) at ATS, which hopefully will incite "intelligent conversation."

Now to be clear, as I stated earlier in this thread, I never said "aliens!" If that was the case, then they couldn't be UFO's, as one is known and one isn't! However, this account is certainly "unexplained."

In conclusion, if this thread, and or any of the contents, comments etc., "insults your intelligent," then why bother to participate?! There are more threads on ATS then there are TV channels--just turn the station!

Frank



posted on Dec, 11 2008 @ 03:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Frank Warren
The Cynthia Olson was sunk 1000 miles northeast of the Hawaiian Islands, according to the I-26 commander Minoru Yakota...


The source I originally checked said 300 nmi. But checking other sources, and the longitude and latitude, I saw it was not that close to California. The perils of relying on one source.


Originally posted by Frank Warren
There were no aircraft carriers "close enough" to the mainland to launch planes.


I knew the aircraft carriers headed West after the attack, not East. That is why I asked about "aircraft launching" ships.


Originally posted by Frank Warren
Moreover, if in fact that were possible, they certainly would not have gone on a sight seeing mission--an attack would have occurred!


Not necessarily. It could have been a scouting mission to probe the defenses of the coast. Or it could have been an attack that was called off when it was found to be too risky.


Originally posted by Frank Warren
I think the "invasion-hysteria element" has to be considered; however, in absorbing many accounts of the event, I believe that there is enough data to support the notion that there were in fact "unidentified craft" that flew into the Bay Area on the 8th.


Unless they weren't really unidentified; it could be (and I believe someone has already brought it up), they were Navy or Army planes. It could have been a test of our own warning system, or it could have been just a hysteria-induced panic over our own planes; due to the hysterical-climate and not wanting to be made fools of, the military wrote it off as "unidentified planes." Of course, like much in this field, it is speculation.

Have you been able to interview anyone who was a witness to these events, or barring that an expert on the Pacific War?



posted on Dec, 11 2008 @ 03:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Frank Warren
Now to be clear, as I stated earlier in this thread, I never said "aliens!" If that was the case, then they couldn't be UFO's, as one is known and one isn't! However, this account is certainly "unexplained."

In conclusion, if this thread, and or any of the contents, comments etc., "insults your intelligent," then why bother to participate?!


I never said the thread. I feel just that you are playing the same semantics game that General Ryan was with the reporters.



posted on Dec, 12 2008 @ 06:46 PM
link   
Afternoon Sc,


Originally posted by SaviorComplex

Originally posted by Frank Warren
The Cynthia Olson was sunk 1000 miles northeast of the Hawaiian Islands, according to the I-26 commander Minoru Yakota...


The source I originally checked said 300 nmi. But checking other sources, and the longitude and latitude, I saw it was not that close to California. The perils of relying on one source.


Originally posted by Frank Warren
There were no aircraft carriers "close enough" to the mainland to launch planes.


I knew the aircraft carriers headed West after the attack, not East. That is why I asked about "aircraft launching" ships.


Originally posted by Frank Warren
Moreover, if in fact that were possible, they certainly would not have gone on a sight seeing mission--an attack would have occurred!



Not necessarily. It could have been a scouting mission to probe the defenses of the coast. Or it could have been an attack that was called off when it was found to be too risky.


Important to remember that this was "the day after the attack on Pearl Harbor"; the Japanese laid all their cards down and started a war with the United States . . . nothing was "riskier" then that. A scouting mission with more then a dozen planes from a military standpoint under these circumstances in nonsensical in my view. Equally important is the fact that this could only be possible if there were aircraft carriers in the vicinity, and there weren't!


Originally posted by Frank Warren
I think the "invasion-hysteria element" has to be considered; however, in absorbing many accounts of the event, I believe that there is enough data to support the notion that there were in fact "unidentified craft" that flew into the Bay Area on the 8th.



Unless they weren't really unidentified; it could be (and I believe someone has already brought it up), they were Navy or Army planes. It could have been a test of our own warning system, or it could have been just a hysteria-induced panic over our own planes; due to the hysterical-climate and not wanting to be made fools of, the military wrote it off as "unidentified planes." Of course, like much in this field, it is speculation.


The excuse used after the event, from the PTB was that it was in fact a test--I don't buy it! Heads would have rolled to do something so horrific the day after Pearl! (Same excuse was rolled out for BOLA as well, amongst others). Additionally, methinks notifying the "Generals" on site would have been protocol for such a test (instead of making them look like idiots--if there was any truth in the notion).

True there is certainly much speculation re the UFO phenomenon, but just keeping up with the facts is overwhelming.


Have you been able to interview anyone who was a witness to these events, or barring that an expert on the Pacific War?


I have interviewed witnesses from BOLA, who were aware of the earlier incident regarding the "blackout" which was precipitated by the sighting. Additionally, I have contacted military archivists as well as absorbed many reports of this particular event, including the witness reports therein.

That said, and again to be clear: I don't discount the idea that there might have been planes; I cede that fact this is a possibility given the existing evidence; however, in that same vein, it seems "unlikely" by the same measures. At present, they remain UFOs, which necessitates further investigation.

Cheers,
Frank



posted on Dec, 12 2008 @ 07:16 PM
link   
SC,


Originally posted by SaviorComplex

Originally posted by Frank Warren
Now to be clear, as I stated earlier in this thread, I never said "aliens!" If that was the case, then they couldn't be UFO's, as one is known and one isn't! However, this account is certainly "unexplained."

In conclusion, if this thread, and or any of the contents, comments etc., "insults your intelligent," then why bother to participate?!


I never said the thread. I feel just that you are playing the same semantics game that General Ryan was with the reporters.


Now who is playing semantics.

You previously wrote,


You previously wrote, "Because the word unidentified was used, people want to assume that it means unexplained or extraterrestrial. And some people, like the OP, want to play games and insult our intelligence by trying to claim they aren't saying aliens were not behind this.


It would seem that you, like many other have incorrectly married the term, "UFO" with "aliens and or extraterrestrials"--I have not. I use it in the manner and definition that the Air Force intended it for, when they gave birth to it (officially) in 1952.

Certainly Ryan wasn't being semantical and nor am I. He merely was making a reasonable deduction given the fact that the biggest attack on US soil occurred no less then 24 hours earlier.

I am merely posting an interesting historical account of a Ufological event (in the truest sense of the word) for "those interested;" the goal is to share and invite intelligent dialogue "pro or con"; I see no reason for ad hominem attacks in this instance, or for that matter "any time" when two people have opposing views.

Cheers,
Frank



posted on Dec, 13 2008 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Frank Warren
Now who is playing semantics.


Not in the least. I defended the thead. I did say it wasn't much ado about nothing.


Originally posted by Frank Warren
It would seem that you, like many other have incorrectly married the term, "UFO" with "aliens and or extraterrestrials"--I have not.


If I fell into the same trap that I accuse others of, I apologize.


Originally posted by Frank Warren
He merely was making a reasonable deduction given the fact that the biggest attack on US soil occurred no less then 24 hours earlier.


When I read General Ryan's comments, I read it as having a bit of an annoyed tone.


Originally posted by Frank Warren
I am merely posting an interesting historical account of a Ufological event (in the truest sense of the word) for "those interested


And I defended that. I think they may be directed at the wrong person.


Originally posted by Frank Warren
I see no reason for ad hominem attacks in this instance...


It was not meant as an ad hominem attack; a harsh criticism, I will admit, but not directed at you as a person.



posted on Dec, 13 2008 @ 07:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Frank Warren

Originally posted by Soylent Green is People
I'm not saying the threat of a Japanese attack was not important at that time, but since this article seems only to be about a group of unidentified planes that approached San Francisco during wartime, this is hardly fodder for this forum.


Aside from BOLA, a few years into the war "Foo Fighters" were attributed to a "new secret enemy aircraft"; it wasn't till after the war we found out that the enemy was experiencing the same thing. A few years after that, Kenneth Arnold's sighting would be passed of as "military aircraft" as well as many other sightings across this country as well as others.

Cheers,
Frank


Good evening Frank,

Like I said, from a military historical perspective, this is an interesting story. I know "hobbyist" amateur military historians who love digging in the details of a story such as this. However, there is nothing here that connects this sighting to the 'Foo Fighters' or Kenneth Arnold's sightings or any other "paranormal aircraft sighting"

I think there needs to be a little more evidence before we jump all over the use of the word "unidentified" used by a general to describe what are probably (in my opinion) planes that could not be identified simply because nobody got a good look at them. This was only one day after Pearl Harbor, after all, and our soldiers/sailors probably did not yet have the skills to quickly identify Japanese aircraft.

I can't be sure, but I bet the general had a good suspicion that these planes were Japanese, but he had no positive ID. I don't believe the general would have wanted to risk causing mass panic in San Francisco by saying "They were Japanese planes", when in reality he could not positively identify them as such. Of course he would say the were unidentified, even if he THINKS they could have been Japanese, because -- frankly -- they were unidentified.

It just seems like quite a logical leap to say that these were anything other than planes. If they were not planes, I think more would have been said about that. In my opinion, these were unidentified planes -- and they were classified as unidentified because these were not seen well enough to identify whose they were, and we knew they weren't ours since we could account for ours.

I suppose I need more evidence to connect this article to something "paranormal" -- more than an anecdotal connection to 'Foo Fighters' and Kenneth Arnold. If this article reported that someone said the aircraft didn't look like planes or looked odd in some way, then that would point to something a little more unexplainable...but nobody said that.

[edit on 12/13/2008 by Soylent Green Is People]



posted on Dec, 14 2008 @ 10:44 AM
link   
Mornin' SC,



If I fell into the same trap that I accuse others of, I apologize . . ..


. . . It was not meant as an ad hominem attack; a harsh criticism, I will admit, but not directed at you as a person.


Apology accepted, and I take you on your word that your intentions are true, and your arguments are just that, and meant in the spirit of vigorous debate.

Cheers,
Frank



posted on Dec, 14 2008 @ 11:51 AM
link   
Mornin SG,

Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People

Originally posted by Frank Warren

Originally posted by Soylent Green is People
I'm not saying the threat of a Japanese attack was not important at that time, but since this article seems only to be about a group of unidentified planes that approached San Francisco during wartime, this is hardly fodder for this forum.


Aside from BOLA, a few years into the war "Foo Fighters" were attributed to a "new secret enemy aircraft"; it wasn't till after the war we found out that the enemy was experiencing the same thing. A few years after that, Kenneth Arnold's sighting would be passed of as "military aircraft" as well as many other sightings across this country as well as others.

Cheers,
Frank



Good evening Frank,

Like I said, from a military historical perspective, this is an interesting story. I know "hobbyist" amateur military historians who love digging in the details of a story such as this. However, there is nothing here that connects this sighting to the 'Foo Fighters' or Kenneth Arnold's sightings or any other "paranormal aircraft sighting"


You're missing my point (and I disagree); I referenced "Foo Fighters," Arnold's sighting" et al, because those events we're initially ascribed a "conventional explanation." 6 weeks later very similar "reactions" took place (ala San Francisco) in regards to BOLA.

To this day, BOLA, the Foo Fighters, Arnold's sighting as well as the one in question remain classified as UFOs; that and their original explanation are similar in nature. In that vein I would argue they're mostly certainly connected, i.e., there exist commonalities.

Lastly, as I've stated earlier, I've haven't said these UFOs were alien or "paranormal."


I think there needs to be a little more evidence before we jump all over the use of the word "unidentified" used by a general to describe what are probably (in my opinion) planes that could not be identified simply because nobody got a good look at them. This was only one day after Pearl Harbor, after all, and our soldiers/sailors probably did not yet have the skills to quickly identify Japanese aircraft.


Again, I do not discount the possibility that these could have been planes; however it seems "unlikely" given what's on the table. Moreover, the significant element of this account is not the word, "unidentified"; it's the fact that what the the UFOs were ascribed to be was impossible.

I also agree that the "majority" of people, military and civilian alike would not be able to identify one plane from another . . . which in my view adds to the confusion, as our planes were in the air.


I can't be sure, but I bet the general had a good suspicion that these planes were Japanese, but he had no positive ID. I don't believe the general would have wanted to risk causing mass panic in San Francisco by saying "They were Japanese planes", when in reality he could not positively identify them as such. Of course he would say the were unidentified, even if he THINKS they could have been Japanese, because -- frankly -- they were unidentified.


"In for a penny in for a pound"; deducing that they were "Japanese bombers" has the same effect. However, all of that is moot since most newspaper reports labeled them as "Japanese" or "enemy planes." In addition Lieutenant General John De-Witt said, "I don't think there's any doubt the planes came from a carrier." We of course know that was not the case.


It just seems like quite a logical leap to say that these were anything other than planes. If they were not planes, I think more would have been said about that. In my opinion, these were unidentified planes -- and they were classified as unidentified because these were not seen well enough to identify whose they were, and we knew they weren't ours since we could account for ours.


(I presume you meant to write, "Illogical"). Again, I'm not saying what they were; I'm illuminating what they were not, i.e., not "ours" and not "theirs." Let us not forget the extensive search that followed, which turned up zip, zilch, nada!

One report stated, "One squadron flew south and vanished." [My emphasis].

Another stated, ". . . from a great elevation this squadron flew westward and through the Golden Gate out to sea."

Out to sea where? How did the others just vanish?!


I suppose I need more evidence to connect this article to something "paranormal" -- more than an anecdotal connection to 'Foo Fighters' and Kenneth Arnold. If this article reported that someone said the aircraft didn't look like planes or looked odd in some way, then that would point to something a little more unexplainable...but nobody said that.


Bingo! More data is required--my point! Again, there is nothing on the table (at present) that says this incident was "paranormal'; however, at the same time it remains "unexplainable!

Cheers,
Frank



posted on Dec, 14 2008 @ 01:01 PM
link   
Difficult to consider the truth ,here...but possibly japanese planes... in passage!



posted on Dec, 15 2008 @ 10:19 AM
link   
reply to post by cropmuncher

Thx for sharing that information, there could quite possibly be a connection between the cases, but I do have to say the link was most interesting...



posted on Dec, 15 2008 @ 10:20 AM
link   
reply to post by Frank Warren
 


Ah yes the Battle of LA. Anniversaries are a great way to never forget such an important phenomenon.




top topics



 
5
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join