EHocking
Penultimate Amazing
Hook, line and sinker....
- Status
I find it hard to fathom that you think that the passage of time has somehow made the evidence against this contention disappear. You act in relation to the evidence as if it is "out of sight, out of mind". Perhaps you believe that there are "new" people who need to be convinced...?
Here is the full set of evidence pertaining to the USN and USNR blimps. Enjoy!
Is it even possible for a blimp have been at Rogue River on 24th May 1949? Perhaps so:
“During WW II, lighter-than-air (LTA) craft were key components in the war against the German U-boat, flying critical convoy escort and antisubmarine warfare (ASW) patrol missions. After war’s end, blimps continued to serve in ASW and other roles, and in 1949 eight new reserve LTA patrol squadrons (ZP) were established. ZP-651 was based at NAS Akron,Ohio; ZPs 751, 752 and 753 at NAS Lakehurst,N.J.; ZP-871 at NAS Oakland, Calif.; ZP-911 at NAS Squantum, Mass.; and ZPs 951 and 952 at MCAF Santa Ana, Calif.” (http://www.history.navy.mil/nan/back...02/lighter.pdf.)
We must consider then two candidate LTA bases on the West Coast: NAS Oakland, California (in San Francisco some 340 miles SSW of Rogue River) and MCAF Santa Ana, California (near Los Angeles some 700 miles SSW of Rogue River).
Obviously we can then rule out Santa Ana as a candidate - for what possible rationale would a Santa Ana blimp be sent 400 miles to overfly the existing San Francisco and the Oakland bases and then proceed another 300 miles to Rogue River? Remember these were ostensibly NAVY RESERVE training bases.
One must also note the location of Rogue River. This is a relatively sparsely populated region of the continental US, on the West Coast in the centre of the Siskiyou National Forest region with only one main road in and out of the region (the Oregon Coast Highway 101).
Next we note the following detailed history (from the same official navy document as above) which seems to show that initial statement (above) may not completely accurate – perhaps the initial statement is merely a summary (coming as it does so early in the document) where the actual details were “skimmed over” or “lost” in order to enable a short, comprehensive summary paragraph to be written.
“The reduction in LTA following the war left ZP-12 at NAS Lakehurst and ZP-31 at NAS Santa Ana as the only active squadrons. A detachment of ZP-31 continued at NAS Moffett Field. On November 15, 1946, ZP-12 was redesignated ZP-2 and ZP-31 became ZP-1. In the summer of 1947, ZP-1 made a home port and fleet change from NAS Santa Ana in the Pacific Fleet to NAS Weeksville in the Atlantic. The change was due to the reduction of NAS Santa Ana to a maintenance status and the elimination of the ZP overhaul mission at NAS Moffett Field.” (http://www.history.navy.mil/download/lta-09.pdf)
Moreover we have from another source:
“The squadron was relocated to MCAS El Toro in 1948” … ” “Santa Ana NAS was decommissioned by the Navy in 1949” … “For less than 2 years, the huge former Navy blimp airfield was evidently reused as a civilian airport.” … “The civilian use of the airfield ended in 1951, when the property was transferred to the Marine Corps, which renamed it as the Marine Corps Air Facility Santa Ana. According to The California State Military Museum, the station reopened during the Korean War. Blimp operations staged a brief resurrection when the Navy established a 2-blimp Naval Air Reserve Training Unit (NARTU) on April 1, 1951. The Marines arrived the next month establishing a helicopter air facility.” (http://www.airfields-freeman.com/CA/...rangeCo_SE.htm)
So this confirms we must indeed rule out Santa Ana as a candidate LTA base – there were simply no Navy blimps at the base in 1949. Some have however argued that as the Santa Ana base continued to be used by advertising blimps (Good Year blimps as it turns out) then one of those could have been responsible. However it beggars belief that an advertising blimp would travel 700 miles (as the crow flies) bypassing major population centres (San Francisco for one) to be sighted over a sparsely populated region of the country. We will return to the Good Year blimps later in this exploration of the evidence.
But what about Oakland (which is the closer of the two bases to Rogue River and was always the most likely candidate anyway)? The following documentary source provided additional information.
“Following the war, all blimp squadrons decommissioned except two which included Santa Ana's ZP 31 renamed ZP-1. Santa Ana also became an aircraft storage facility in November 1945. Finally in August 1947, the Navy relocated ZP-1 to Weeksville, N. C. and all blimp operations on the West Coast ended. On June 6, 1949, Santa Ana decommissioned becoming an OLF. For a time, the hangars were used by advertising blimps.”(http://www.militarymuseum.org/MCASTustin.html)
This would seem to put the clincher on the argument – “Finally in August 1947, the Navy relocated ZP-1 to Weeksville, N. C. and all blimp operations on the West Coast ended.”
But it is interesting to note that Oakland has not been directly ruled out as a candidate in a specific historical document (apart from the general “…all West Coast operations ceased… of course, but skeptics are very hard to please…). So, we have from a book history:
Oakland Aviation by Ronald T. Reuther and William T. Larkins:
“Navy Reserve Squadron ZP-871 (Lighter than air) flew one after the war at Oakland from 1952 to 1958. (This photograph shows…) It was used as a slow, low-flying billboard, with the words “JOIN THE U.S. NAVAL RESERVE, BE A NAVAL AVIATION CADET” on the side.”
So there was a blimp at Oakland – just one - but it seems it was used solely as an advertising blimp for the Navy over the city, between 1952 and1958. So again, nothing for May 1949.
Now the skeptics are extremely hard to please and despite the evidence thus far presented continued (some would say irrationally at this point) to assert “A blimp done it” (working possibly on the assumption “never let the evidence get in the way of a good story”).
So what other evidence did they present?
Well, they brought in another possible candidate LTA Navy base – Tillamook. Now it is possible there were blimps at the base in 1949 because:
“After the war, NAS Tillamook was quickly disestablished, but her facilities continued to provide staging areas for private airship companies.” (http://www.nastillamook.org/faqs/base/uses.htm)
So then the following link is used to evidence that the Good Year blimp operation “could have done it”. (http://www.nastillamook.org/faqs/hangars/use.htm)
But under that link is a simple table:
1947 Goodyear West Coast Blimp Tour
1949-1982 Lumber Planing Mills
1952-1953 USAF Balloon Testing 1958 Balloon Launching (Cosmic Ray Research) 1963 & 1979 Coast-To-Coast Launching Point
1981-1991 Cyclocrane Development
1984 Short Take-Off & Landing Experiments
1984-Present Various Blimp Developments
1989 Government Aerostat Testing
1990 Trans-World Balloon Testing
1992-Present Aircraft Museum (Hangar B)
1994 USAF Tethered Radar Balloon Testing
Now we must note that the Goodyear “Tour” was operational only in 1947: That is, not 1948 or 1949 - because it if was operational in those years, there would have been an indication recorded in the table that it was.
Still the blimp hypothesis would not die. So what next did the skeptics argue?
They entered the following photo into the record: (http://photos.salemhistory.net/cdm4/...ISOBOX=1&REC=3) with a caption that reads: “This is a view from the Goodyear blimp on May 6, 1949, of Bush Pasture park before Willamette University's McCullough Stadium was built.”
Ah, so we are back to the Goodyear blimp (Note: Salem, Oregon is some 190 miles NNE of Rogue River).
Now before we move on with the Good Year blimp hypothesis. Some skeptics refused to let the US Navy blimps go. There was even a contention that if it wasn’t the USN, then it might have been the USN Reserve.
The skeptics cited a number of forward estimates (of naval asset registers) that seemed to show that despite the official histories, there actually were operational USN bases on the East Coast in May 1949.
First the skeptics tried to point out a distinction between Navy operations and Navy Reserve operations in a statement already presented here. That is:
“During WW II, lighter-than-air (LTA) craft were key components in the war against the German U-boat, flying critical convoy escort and antisubmarine warfare (ASW) patrol missions. After war's end, blimps continued to serve in ASW and other roles, and in 1949 eight new reserve LTA patrol squadrons (ZP) were established. ZP-651 was based at NAS Akron, Ohio; ZPs 751, 752 and 753 at NAS Lakehurst, N.J.; ZP-871 at NAS Oakland, Calif.; ZP-911 at NAS Squantum, Mass.; and ZPs 951 and 952 at MCAF Santa Ana, Calif. These reserve ZP squadrons were even more unusual than their lighter-than-air brethren, as revealed bv a closer look at ZP-911.” (http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P3-276238111.html)
Now the skeptics may have not read that passage as carefully as they might because contained within it is the last sentence “These reserve ZP squadrons were even more unusual than their lighter-than-air brethren…”
But perhaps the statement does not mean what we think it means. Is there in fact a conflict between this statement and the statements of the official Navy history (above)?
One clue to the resolution of this apparent conflict could be the relatively imprecise date in this statement – 1949. It is certainly acknowledged that USN blimps were operating in the 1950s; we have evidence for that*, but 1949? I think the key term to be considered is “established” in 1949. This does not mean “became operational” in 1949. If we accept that the squadrons in question were “established” in 1949 but their operational status only reached in (as early as) 1950 then there is no conflict with official sources. But of course this does NOT put a blimp in Rogue River in May 1949.
* For example: Photographic proof that LTA squadrons were still operating in California in 1950 (http://www.bluffshoa.com/history.php). But note, this again is 1950, not 1949, and as we are about to discover. The USN did close all its operating bases down by early 1949 (and leased them out to private companies such as Good year), but beginning in 1950, they began reinstating operational capacity in at least some of the bases on the East Coast.
So, the forward estimates were entered as evidence of USN and USNR blimp operations. We must then examine them to see what they contain.
There was some confusion over the dates of these forward estimates. The 1949 fiscal year estimate was, for example, produced in 1947. So we must be careful to distinguish what was a “forward estimate” with what the situation was “on the ground” on the dates in question.
Subject: Naval Aeronautical Organisation, Fiscal Year 1950.
3. This pamphlet is issued as a means of presenting to interested commands the planned size and composition of naval Aviation.
(Ed. Note: Apart from the contents list, the following LTA references are the only LTA references in the whole document.)
SECTION I
2. Aircraft Units
(10) Lighter-than Airships Tactical Squadrons, 2
SECTION 111. – AIRCRAFT
7. OPERATING LEVEL BY MODEL (End of fiscal 1950)
(A) LTA USNR 2, USN 16, TOTAL 18 (Revised 2 March 1949)
SECTION IV – AVIATION BASES
I. CONTINENTAL AIR STATIONS
A. SUPPORTING THE FLEET
(1) NAVY HTA
NAS Key West, Fla. OpDevFor Sqdn. Air Ships 1 ZP Det.
(2) NAVY (LTA)
NAS Lakehurst, N. J. Fleet LTA, LTA Tra. 1 ZP
E. STORAGE FACILITIES
NAF Weeksville, N.C. LTA Operations 1 ZP
SECTION V – THE NAVAL AIR RESERVE
2. Aircraft Assignment (Stations)
Assignment of aircraft by types to reserve Air Stations is indicated below:
NARTU Lakehurst, N.J. ZP 2 (airships)
…and that is it! There are simply no East Coast bases mentioned at all. They are of no consideration and this means of course that they were not operational at the time. Nevertheless, there still remains a slight confusion here. Does this mean planned operation or existing operation. The introduction to the document indicates “existing” and the note in Section III indicates “existing”, but the intention of the document remains a forward estimate nevertheless. We must then examine the previous year to make a proper determination.
The 1949 forward estimate.
The following sections are quoted as the ONLY references to either LTA or ZP squadrons.
SECTION I – SUMMARY
2. Aircraft Units.
(A) Navy
(10) Lighter-than-Airships Tactical Squadrons 3
(Ed. Note: we see there were 3 Squadrons noted here, whereas in the above only 2 are mentioned. Is it possible then that the extra squadron was located on the East Coast?)
SECTION 111. - AIRCRAFT
5. LIGHTER-THAN-AIR
USN
Z NP Squadrons 3 (squadrons) 12(airships)
Training 4
Experiment & Development 4
7. Operating Level By Model.
(B) LTA 6(USNR) 20(USN) 26(TOTAL)
SECTION IV. - SHORE ESTABLISHMENT
1. Continental Air Stations.
(A) Supporting the Fleet
(2) Navy LTA
NAS Key West, FLA. Night Carrier Trng 1 ZP Det.
NAS Moffett, Cal. Wings, Avia. Special 1 ZP
(Note: 1 ZP is the name of LTA squadron 1)
Navy (LTA)
NAS Lakehurst, N.J. Support Fleet LTA 2 ZP. 1 ZP Trng.
(Note: 2 ZP is the name of LTA squadron 2)
(E) Storage Facilities
NAF Weeksville, N.C BuAr A/C Sorage Program (A/C Preservation), LTA 1 ZP
NAS Santa Ana, Cal. BuAr A/C Sorage Program (A/C Preservation), LTA 1 ZP
AIRCRAFT IN STORAGE AT END OF PERIOD
1948
Jun ZP-K 24 (in inactive storage) 3 (active storage) ZP-M 1(active storage) ZT_G 3 (inactive storage) ZT-L 3 (inactive storage)
Dec ZP-K 24 (in inactive storage) 3 (active storage) ZP-M 1(active storage) ZT_G 3 (inactive storage) ZT-L 3 (inactive storage)
1949
Jun ZP-K 24 (in inactive storage) 3 (active storage) ZP-M 1(active storage) ZT_G 3 (inactive storage) ZT-L 3 (inactive storage)
Dec (no data)
8. New Procurement Fiscal 1949 Funds.
1 JULY 1949 - 30 JUNE 1950
j. Airships 2(Units) 2 (TOTAL)
SECTION V – THE NAVAL AIR RESERVE
3. Aircraft Assignments (Stations)
NAS Lakehurst 6 (AIRSHIPS)
Indeed we note here that there are two East Coast bases mentioned; NAS Moffett and NAS Santa Ana. However, Santa Ana is listed as a “storage facility” so no operational flights there. What about NAS Moffett then?
According to the Moffett Field Historical Society:
“In January 1944, the last airship arrived at Moffett for assembly. Two months later, Moffett graduated its last training class for pilots and crew. And in August 1947, a blimp went down off the Cape of Mendocino. No lives were lost, but it would be the last flight for the LTA program at Moffett. That same month, the last blimp at Moffett Field was deflated. (http://www.moffettfieldmuseum.org/history.html)
Now that’s a pretty categorical statement. No operational blimps at Moffett after August 1947! And this accords with the official histories already examined.
So, given the official histories, we must conclude that there were no operational USN or USNR blimps on the East Coast in May 1949.
Sledge
Grammaton Cleric
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2009
- Messages
- 7,114
I've realised your problem, Rramjet. The famous maxim of Sherlock Holmes is "when you have excluded the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." You appear to using it with the words "impossible" and "improbable" the other way round.
EHocking
Penultimate Amazing
Your misrepresentation of the Navy/Naval Reserve information was refuted at the start of November.
Your repetition of this misrepresentation does nothing to support your argument.
Your repetition of this misrepresentation does nothing to support your argument.
gambling_cruiser
Muse
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2006
- Messages
- 734
AFAIK logorrhea is a serious problem, Rramjets walls of text seems to be the Internet version of the same issue.
The following are the excepts from the interviews with the witnesses that pertain to the shape of the object. Jocce points out the two underlined passages as contradictory to the assertion that the object was consistent in aspect throughout.
The question then needs to be asked why the witnesses would make such statements if they contradicted the rest of their (and others) testimony. Surely they would have been aware that such statements were[ contradictory?
There are two points to note in relation to this. The first is that the witnesses are obviously relating to us their observations at the time. Equally obviously they have not “altered” their testimony to “suit” the requirements of consistency. They have simply given us their observations “as is” - and that makes then GOOD observers. That is they have allowed the two apparent inconsistencies to stand – they made the observations – they related what they saw – that is all – if there are inconsistencies, so be it – that is OUR problem, not theirs. Its like they are saying “Look, I am just telling you what I saw. Make of it what you will.” And that is precisely what we NEED observers to do – not to alter testimony if they think it might be inconsistent.
The second point is to note that the “inconsistent” observations were both made with the “naked eye”. However, after this binoculars were used and “Observed through the glasses, the object appeared to be made of silvery metal, either completely circular or somewhat oval. It was thin near the edges and thicker in the center.” (Mr B) and “With the binoculars, the object resolved into a pancake-like shape, somewhat thicker in the center than the edges, perfectly flat on the bottom with a small fin or vane arising about midship and growing gradually higher to the rear, ending flush with a trailing edge as the object travelled. Flat surface was parallel to the earth. The object appeared to be made of aluminum or some other shiny metal, and while it appeared to be oval, it could have been perfectly round in plan section.”
Here then are the relevant sections of the witness statements:
(Mr B Record of interview)
“Object appeared round and shiny, something like a 50-cent piece, viewed from below and to one side. Object's color was silvery and it appeared round in plan view … Just before Mr. B handed the glasses to Mr. XXX (We’ll call him “Mr. C”), the object made a turn on its vertical axis with no tilting or banking and started to move in a southeasterly direction.”
(Mr B signed statement)
“To the naked eye this object appeared circular and standing on edge. I then focused a pair of 8-power, Navy-type binoculars and saw that it was indeed circular and that we appeared to be looking upward at the bottom side of it. … As I put the glasses on it, made a turn to the south, with no banking or leaning, and picked up speed. I then handed the glasses to Mr. C in order that he might see the object. Observed through the glasses, the object appeared to be made of silvery metal, either completely circular or somewhat oval. It was thin near the edges and thicker in the center.”
(Mr C record of interview)
“Object appeared to be about one or two miles away. Mr. C observed the object (for) about 30 seconds with the naked eye at which time he could see only a bright glitter, like a round mirror standing on edge with no apparent motion. Just as the object began to move, Mr. B handed Mr. C a pair of 8-power, Navy-type binoculars through which Mr. C viewed the object. With the binoculars, the object resolved into a pancake-like shape, somewhat thicker in the center than the edges, perfectly flat on the bottom with a small fin or vane arising about midship and growing gradually higher to the rear, ending flush with a trailing edge as the object travelled. Flat surface was parallel to the earth. The object appeared to be made of aluminum or some other shiny metal, and while it appeared to be oval, it could have been perfectly round in plan section.”
(Mr C signed statement)
“But after watching it for approximately one minute and a half, I was handed a pair of 8- power binoculars by Mr. B. It was then possible to see that the object was roughly circular in shape and appeared to be 30 to 35 feet in diameter. It had somewhat the cross-sectional appearance of a pancake, being thicker in the center than at the edges.”
EHocking
Penultimate Amazing
Additionally, in October last year, eyewitness account and photographic evidence was presented that the Navy/Reserve were operating blimps on the west coast up to 1950
Last edited:
Correa Neto
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2003
- Messages
- 8,548
Don't bother me with evidence, my mind is already made up.
And I ask again then. Where in the witness statements do you find support for your claim that the aspect ratio was constant during the observation? It's not in there and you're just guessing.
Correa Neto
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2003
- Messages
- 8,548
Not to mention that two sketches show diferent X/Y ratios...
Thanx EHocking for digging up the correct data so I don't have to do it again (actually there is one more recent plan from 1948 but it doesn't matter, there're blimps in that one too).
Rramjet, I find it amazing that you once again choose to present the wrong document. The document you present describes how the navy plans to be organized on June 30 1950. I can only conclude that you deliberately try to lie again.
For the casual reader, I want to point out that the Rouge river sighting was in may 1949 so the only interesting documentation is for the fiscal year 1949.
Last edited:
Correa Neto
Philosopher
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2003
- Messages
- 8,548
What a scientist, eh?
First it must be remembered that The documents you quote from are speculative FORWARD estimates and do NOT represent what actually occurred in practice. They are simply the Navy’s wishlist.
Another point to note is the dates of the estimates. For example the first document you claim was for “fiscal year 1949” was actually prepared in 1947! The second you quote from was actually prepared in 1948! The third prepared BEFORE May 1949!
So it is really ONLY the last document that IS in any way shape or form relevant – because it provides the latest information available as to the status of the (wish list) blimp fleets (that is, the two previous documents have been superseded by the last). So let us examine the last document a little more carefully shall we – as it might have at least some relevance?
You wrote:
“SECTION IV - AVIATION BASES
1. Continental Air Stations (NAVY)
NAS Moffett Field, Calif - Provide facilities to support;
Occasional, Additional, Temporary Operations by,...1 ZP”
1. Continental Air Stations (NAVY)
NAS Moffett Field, Calif - Provide facilities to support;
Occasional, Additional, Temporary Operations by,...1 ZP”
I stated originally:
“For Moffet (designated HTA- Heavier Than Air) field there were “Occasional, Additional, Temporary Operations by,...1 ZP” (p.17)
BUT crucially there is NO mention of ANY OTHER BASES that might be operational regarding LTA squadrons. The ONLY base mentioned that has ANYTHING to do with LTA operational capacity is Lakehurst! (p.17)
So let us refer back to the official history to see what was ACTUALLY happening at Moffett:
“The reduction in LTA following the war left ZP-12 at NAS Lakehurst and ZP-31 at NAS Santa Ana as the only active squadrons. A detachment of ZP-31 continued at NAS Moffett Field. On November 15, 1946, ZP-12 was redesignated ZP-2 and ZP-31 became ZP-1. In the summer of 1947, ZP-1 made a home port and fleet change from NAS Santa Ana in the Pacific Fleet to NAS Weeksville in the Atlantic. The change was due to the reduction of NAS Santa Ana to a maintenance status and the elimination of the ZP overhaul mission at NAS Moffett Field.” (http://www.history.navy.mil/download/lta-09.pdf)
The crucial point to note here that there was an overhall mission at Moffet field…that is maintenance activities – NOT operational flying - and even THAT capacity was "eliminated".
Couple that with this statement:
“In January 1944, the last airship arrived at Moffett for assembly. Two months later, Moffett graduated its last training class for pilots and crew. And in August 1947, a blimp went down off the Cape of Mendocino. No lives were lost, but it would be the last flight for the LTA program at Moffett. That same month, the last blimp at Moffett Field was deflated.” (http://www.moffettfieldmuseum.org/history.html)
And it is obvious to anyone that Moffett, in June 1949 was NOT an operational Blimp base.
Now we get to the next bit of your “assertion” (which you claim comes from the same document).
The existing Naval Air Stations listed below will be retained in an active operating condition sufficent to provide facilities to support the mission assigned;...NAS Oakland, Cal
PACIFIC FLEET SUPPORT
1. CONTINENTAL
NAS Moffet Field. - Mission - ...Fleet and major activities will include..One airship squadron (occasional)
NAVAL Air RESERVE
The following Naval Air Stations will be retained in an active operating condition sufficent to provide facilities to support the mission assigned..
NAS Oakland; Mission - Provide facilities to support the naval and Marine Air Reserve Training.”
PACIFIC FLEET SUPPORT
1. CONTINENTAL
NAS Moffet Field. - Mission - ...Fleet and major activities will include..One airship squadron (occasional)
NAVAL Air RESERVE
The following Naval Air Stations will be retained in an active operating condition sufficent to provide facilities to support the mission assigned..
NAS Oakland; Mission - Provide facilities to support the naval and Marine Air Reserve Training.”
This is a mix of half truths and outright fiction! In other words E Hocking has simply MADE UP most of the above!
On page 24 there is a list that includes the following:
1. Existing Naval Air Reserve Stations
The existing Naval Air Reserve Stations listed be retained in an active oporating (sic) condition sufficient provide facilities to support; the mission assigned:
… NAS Oakland, Cal.”
The existing Naval Air Reserve Stations listed be retained in an active oporating (sic) condition sufficient provide facilities to support; the mission assigned:
… NAS Oakland, Cal.”
Immediately we can note what EHocking left out of HIS statement above.
Not only that - in FACT, his statement comes from the “1947” (!) document, NOT the “1950” document – and it STILL refers to the USNR, NOT the USN!
But what was the ACTUAL status of Oakland (according to the document)? Further down the page is a list of the bases AND the number of various types of “assets” held at each – including the number of airships.
There we find that NO – repeat – NO airships are listed at Oakland. (that is NONE!). There are 2 at Lakehurst, 2 at Santa Ana and 2 at Cleveland…but this is in 1947!
So what about 1950? There are 2 at Lakehurst – and that is IT. NONE anywhere else!
There is more I could say about this but I am out of time and it should be clear that EHocking has (at best) misrepresented the historical facts. Not only that, it was pointed out to him at the time of his original post that he has so misrepresented and yet here it appears again! SHAME on you EHocking – shame!
Anyone can check out the veracity of what I say for themselves:
(http://www.history.navy.mil/a-record/nao23-52/fy-1950.pdf) check it out – p. 24-25 are the relevant pages
(http://www.history.navy.mil/a-record/nao23-52/fy-1949-jun48.pdf)
(http://www.history.navy.mil/a-record/nao23-52/fy-1949-may47.pdf)
Marduk
Banned
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2009
- Messages
- 10,183
EHocking
Penultimate Amazing
Budget. Not a wishlist. Forward plan.
Wrong. They are records of what was planned for 1949 and what occurred in 1949.
FISCAL YEAR 1949 (28 June 1948)
SECTION IV - AVIATION BASES
1. Continental Air Stations (NAVY)
NAS Moffett Field, Calif - Provide facilities to support;
Regular Operations by,...1 ZP
E. Storage Facilities
NAS Santa Ana, Cal. - Provide facilities to support;
Regular Operations by,...(LTA Activities)...1 ZP
The existing Naval Air Stations listed below will be retained in an active operating condition sufficent to provide facilities to support the mission assigned;...NAS Oakland, Cal
FISCAL YEAR 1950 (01 May 1949)
SECTION IV - AVIATION BASES
1. Continental Air Stations (NAVY)
NAS Moffett Field, Calif - Provide facilities to support;
Occasional, Additional, Temporary Operations by,...1 ZP
The existing Naval Air Stations listed below will be retained in an active operating condition sufficent to provide facilities to support the mission assigned;...NAS Oakland, Cal
I suggest you reread the above.
I suggest you attack the argument and not the arguer.
Everyone else has.
The fact is that I was the one who researched these documents and am fully cogniscent of their content. As are quite a number of other participants here. Repeating your 5 month old assertions does not change what everyone else can see, and that is military fiscal records showing that there were blimp operations bases operating on the west coast of the US in 1949.
Deny this as much as you wish - all other readers of this thread can and have read this supporting evidence and have been at pains to correct your misinterpretation of it.
Last edited:
Akhenaten
Heretic Pharaoh
Blimps.
Why did you lie about the thread being closed, Rramjet? Where did you send your appeal?
Akhenaten said:
What a strange choice of colour.
Oh, wait . . .
wollery
Protected by Samurai Hedgehogs!
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2003
- Messages
- 11,308
Liar. Anyone can go to that page and read it for themselves. The table is a list of Novel Projects that the base "participated" in.
That doesn't even mean that the Goodyear blimp was based there, only that Tillamook was used by the Goodyear blimp for its 1947 west coast tour. For all we know the tour could have continued in the following years without using Tillamook. Indeed, the Goodyear blimp could have used Tillamook as an ordinary staging post for normal operations, not as part of a tour, which would not fall under the "novel projects" category, and would therefore not be listed in the table.
We also know, for certain that the Goodyear blimp was operating in the North West coastal region in May of 1949, and that it was present at a site that was less than half a days round trip from Rogue River at the time.
Rramjet, do you deny any of this information?
Last edited:
Navy wishlists? So that is what you call the navys budget plans. Wow...
We "claim" it was for fiscal year 1949? It IS for the fiscal year 1949! Is that hard for you to understand? It really sounds as though you don't believe it.
The fiscal year 1950 starts at july 1 1949 and ends on june 30 1950 and at the beginning of the document you can read:
The activities, organizations and units listed are indicated in their ultimate status at the end of the fiscal year
That would be on june 1950, so the document is completely irrelevant to this discussion. Why do you keep bringing it up? Why don't you just examine the plans for the fiscal year 2010 then if you want the most recent plans? They would be just as relevant to this discussion.
- Status