|
Nominations and Campaigning for the 2024 RationalWiki Moderator Election are now open |
Talk:Foo fighter
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Nice little article, but isn't this site meant to refute "it's all a mystery" claims? There may or may not be a rational explanation for foo fighters, but it goes against the spirit of rationalwiki to simply say there is no explanation. Real first name and last initial (talk) 13:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- Well, that's something I'm researching now, but besides the much-scoffed "we were shooting at a weather balloon" defence, the Battle of LA would appear to be a genuine mystery that hasn't been solved yet. The fact that the object was caught in searchlights debunks the "Venus" excuse that is often used. You're welcome to pitch in and help find something that explains it. --PsyGremlinSermā! 13:06, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- The "thought to be a secret Japanese weapon" immediately implies those "balloon bomb" things they tried. Although I'm not sure if 1942 was too early for that.
gnostic 13:09, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- The Battle of Los Angeles is a separate phenomenon (no matter how much ufologists want to clump it with contemporary phenomena) and warrants a separate article.
- The Fu-Go balloons started launching in 1944. And the number of rounds fired in the sky is not exceptional - someone on another forum dug up anti-aircraft gun statistics. The "rounds fired" to "planes shot down" ratio was surprisingly high. No wonder they switched to guided missiles as soon as possible. --ZooGuard (talk) 14:53, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- What I'll do, is add the opening lines of the article to the UFO article and delete this then. Is it worth having a "Battle of LA" article? --PsyGremlin말하십시오 14:57, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- Er, no. I think that Foo fighter and Battle of Los Angeles should be two separate articles. If you think that the foo fighter content is too short for a stub, you can delete it. I can re-create it later, when the muse visits me. :) --ZooGuard (talk) 15:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- Um, ok, I've moved Foo Fighters into UFO for now, fits better there anyway. I'll move the other text to a BoLA page. --PsyGremlinFale! 15:11, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- Commonly, all UFO sightings from that era are shoved under the banner of "Foo Fighters", although they're not all the ball lightning style sightings from the mid 40s. Nothing stops us from having multiple articles - but only when the content is there. I think it would be best to keep it under one banner and branch off rather than go with multiple super-stubs. gnostic 15:23, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- Commonly, all UFO sightings from that era are shoved under the banner of "Foo Fighters", although they're not all the ball lightning style sightings from the mid 40s. Nothing stops us from having multiple articles - but only when the content is there. I think it would be best to keep it under one banner and branch off rather than go with multiple super-stubs.
- Um, ok, I've moved Foo Fighters into UFO for now, fits better there anyway. I'll move the other text to a BoLA page. --PsyGremlinFale! 15:11, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- Er, no. I think that Foo fighter and Battle of Los Angeles should be two separate articles. If you think that the foo fighter content is too short for a stub, you can delete it. I can re-create it later, when the muse visits me. :) --ZooGuard (talk) 15:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- What I'll do, is add the opening lines of the article to the UFO article and delete this then. Is it worth having a "Battle of LA" article? --PsyGremlin말하십시오 14:57, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- The "thought to be a secret Japanese weapon" immediately implies those "balloon bomb" things they tried. Although I'm not sure if 1942 was too early for that.