Discussion Overview
The discussion centers on the camouflage techniques used to conceal the Lockheed Burbank Aircraft Plant during World War II, exploring the involvement of Hollywood set designers and the effectiveness of these methods. The conversation includes anecdotes and reflections on the historical context and implications of such camouflage strategies.
Discussion Character
- Exploratory
- Conceptual clarification
- Debate/contested
Main Points Raised
- Some participants note that the Army Corps of Engineers used camouflage netting and trompe l’oeil to disguise the Lockheed Burbank Aircraft Plant as a rural subdivision.
- Others mention that Hollywood set designers were likely involved in creating the camouflage due to their proximity to the factory and expertise in set design.
- A participant shares a humorous anecdote about Jack Warner's response to concerns about the factory's visibility from the air, leading to the installation of a large sign pointing to Burbank.
- One participant references stage magician Jasper Maskelyne's similar camouflage efforts, such as hiding the Suez Canal.
- There are differing opinions on the effectiveness of the camouflage, with some suggesting it was quite effective for its time, while others express skepticism about its overall quality.
- The conversation also touches on the evolution of camouflage strategies over time, with a participant mentioning that later strategies may have been more cost-effective.
- Several posts include light-hearted banter about spelling mistakes and the nature of the discussion, which diverges into humor rather than technical analysis.
Areas of Agreement / Disagreement
Participants express a mix of agreement on the involvement of Hollywood set designers but differ in their assessments of the effectiveness and quality of the camouflage. The discussion remains somewhat unresolved regarding the overall impact of these strategies.
Contextual Notes
Some claims about the effectiveness of the camouflage and the specific contributions of Hollywood set designers depend on subjective interpretations and may not be universally accepted. The discussion includes anecdotal evidence and personal reflections that may not be fully substantiated.