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.

 

The Battle of Los Angeles 1942 : New Light on the Original Picture?

page: 3
102
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 23 2015 @ 01:43 PM
link   
a reply to: Wolfenz




is there any in existence of The a Script a word for word of the CBS Radio Broadcast REPORT of the Battle of Los Angeles ?


The MP3 of the broadcast is available : CBS Battle of Los Angeles News Report Feb 25th 1942

The transcript is as follows (but note the disclaimer in yellow). I've also added emphasis in bold that applies to the other points you have raised:




A transcript of a radio report made that morning by then-CBS reporter Byron Palmer, who would later become a Broadway and television actor. His report includes inaccuracies—planes were never sent into the air, for example—again representative of the mass confusion and varying reports being made about the events that morning:


Anti-aircraft guns went into action against unidentified aircraft in the Los Angeles area shortly after 3:00 a.m. Pacific War Time this morning. The antiaircraft guns began barking during a blackout ordered by the 4th Interceptor Command at 2:25 a.m. The unidentified object which some sources thought might be a blimp, moved slowly down the coast toward Santa Monica and disappeared south of Long Beach. Army officials declined to comment on the possibility that the object might have been a blimp. However, it required nearly 30 minutes to travel some 25 miles, far slower than an airplane.

Watchers on a rooftop of the Columbia Broadcasting building in the heart of Hollywood could plainly see the flashes of guns and searchlights sweeping the skies in a wide arc along the coastal area. Concussion of the shells could be felt in downtown Los Angeles 15 miles away. US Army planes quickly took to the dark skies but whether they contacted the object has not been announced. Army officials say they will not comment until they receive a full report on the action. Although some watchers say they saw airplanes in the air, semi-official sources say they probably were the US Army’s pursuit. Several observers say they saw one or more planes spotlighted by 20 or 30 searchlights. The object moved southward, presumably over Huntington Park at the western edge of Los Angeles, and on southward to about Long Beach on the coast. By 3:30 a.m. observers said the object appeared to be over the south of Long Beach. Searchlights closely followed the object down the coast and kept it centered in their glare. Shells frequently can be seen bursting near the object, but none appeared to hit it. The shooting stopped about 3:30 am.

The shooting brought warfare to the front door of this city of a million and a quarter population for the first time since December 7th. Already it was alert to the presence off the southern California coast of a Japanese submarine which had pumped 25 shells into an oilfield north of Santa Barbara Monday evening. Because of the presence of the submarine, a 3-hour alert was ordered at dusk last night and civilian authorities stood at their posts while the Army and Navy continued their search for the submersible. The evening alert ended at 10:23 p.m., but another was sounded at 2:22 a.m. and the blackout followed within 3 minutes. It covered Los Angeles County from to Santa Monica to Pomona. At 2:27 all southern California radio stations were ordered off the air except those in San Diego. Approximately 20 minutes after the firing died down, the ship returned and headed westward from Long Beach towards Santa Monica. The guns went into action again hurling round after round of shells at the object. The second barrage appeared to be closer to downtown Los Angeles, since watchers could hear the concussion of the guns more clearly and the flash of bursting shells was brighter. Then the ship disappeared for the second time over the ocean. We return you now to CBS in New York.


Source : www.nww2m.com...




posted on Aug, 23 2015 @ 02:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Bigburgh

I could see a blimp but would a blimp withstand all that shelling for that length of time? If so forget bullet proof I want whatever material the blimp was made of.



posted on Aug, 23 2015 @ 02:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Reallyfolks




I could see that more with a bunch of gun users together. Not so sure about what was being shot for the amount of time that it was. Possible I guess but the whole weather ballon is flat out crazy.


For the likes of people who have expressed a similar dismissive view that it was a weather balloon then you have to think a little further beyond that.

The incident could have been "triggered" by a weather balloon picked up on radar.
At 03:06 - A balloon carrying a flare was spotted over Santa Monica. It was ordered destroyed by the Anti-aircraft controller. Also radar was fairly basic in those days and was not like it is now and subject to ghost images and the interpretation of its operators.

So the story doesn't necessarily mean that the guns were being trained on a real object for 30 mins or more. Nervous troops could have become twitchy thinking they spotted something in the spotlights, started firing and then you have AA shells, bullets and smoke all helping to obscure what may have been a non-existent target. Other gun crews might then start firing as well because the searchlights appear to be focusing on something.

If you look back at the various witness reports there were anything from no aircraft to 200 aircraft. Even though Japan and US aircraft were not launched according to the military of both nations. People were seeing things in the skies that were not there. So it is quite feasible that nervy gunners were actually firing at fresh air.

intrptr has already covered that part of the scenario with his theory earlier in the thread



posted on Aug, 23 2015 @ 02:58 PM
link   
a reply to: mirageman

I personally believe that the Battle of LA was an authentic UFO encounter that was subsequently covered up...and not very well either. I like to think that it was done simply to quell the fear and panic the original reports induced, as a form of protection, because they badly underestimated the scope of the public's reaction and so went into full "backpeddle" mode. There are many reasons why I continue to believe that to be true, but nevertheless, it is always a good thing to have information out there that allows people to form their own hypotheses regarding the event.

This is a really awesome thread, really well-written with lots of info, thank you for putting it out there. We need more of this in ATS land. S&F



posted on Aug, 23 2015 @ 03:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: mirageman
a reply to: Reallyfolks




I could see that more with a bunch of gun users together. Not so sure about what was being shot for the amount of time that it was. Possible I guess but the whole weather ballon is flat out crazy.


For the likes of people who have expressed a similar dismissive view that it was a weather balloon then you have to think a little further beyond that.

The incident could have been "triggered" by a weather balloon picked up on radar.
At 03:06 - A balloon carrying a flare was spotted over Santa Monica. It was ordered destroyed by the Anti-aircraft controller. Also radar was fairly basic in those days and was not like it is now and subject to ghost images and the interpretation of its operators.

So the story doesn't necessarily mean that the guns were being trained on a real object for 30 mins or more. Nervous troops could have become twitchy thinking they spotted something in the spotlights, started firing and then you have AA shells, bullets and smoke all helping to obscure what may have been a non-existent target. Other gun crews might then start firing as well because the searchlights appear to be focusing on something.

If you look back at the various witness reports there were anything from no aircraft to 200 aircraft. Even though Japan and US aircraft were not launched according to the military of both nations. People were seeing things in the skies that were not there. So it is quite feasible that nervy gunners were actually firing at fresh air.

intrptr has already covered that part of the scenario with his theory earlier in the thread

And fresh air is a lot more believable than a balloon.







posted on Aug, 23 2015 @ 03:03 PM
link   
From a combat vets perspective. Once a large amount of outgoing fire is established! it can be difficult to tell whether the enemy is still shooting at you. Frequently a 'cease fire' will be called in order to assess whether the enemy is still firing or they have disengaged. Not uncommonly a raging "firefight" can be kicked off by an itchy trigger finger, or even a bored soldier.

It stands to reason that someone could have thought they saw something, started shooting and then everyone else did too. At that point it's just a snowball effect. Once a bunch of stuff is exploding in the air, who knows what's up there?
edit on 23-8-2015 by hammanderr because: Puctuation



posted on Aug, 23 2015 @ 03:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: vonclod
a reply to: Wolfenz

I think AA shells are designed to explode near the object taking it down via shrapnel..if Im wrong someone will correct me, but if it was a balloon you would think it should of come down.
I really don't know what to think but lean towards as an earlier poster put it "war jitters"
Nice effort OP


thought of the same thing .. but timing and altitude for the fuse to go off



posted on Aug, 23 2015 @ 03:11 PM
link   
a reply to: mirageman

thanks alot


I appreciate it, for the posting


now we all know what Bryan Palmer has mentioned .



edit on 02015SundayfAmerica/Chicago8234 by Wolfenz because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 23 2015 @ 03:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage




Here's a question. When did the first claims that the "Battle of Los Angeles" involved UFOs or ET show up? As has been pointed out, eyewitness reports varied wildly.


It's a very good question my thinking would have been as Wolfenz said. Around the time foo fighters were being discussed or shortly after.

But it seems the Battle of LA was not deemed as a UFO case back in the 1950s in the popular UFO literature of the day. NICAPs 1964 Evidence Report makes no mention of anything relating to this event.

Hynek's UFO Experience (1972) does not appear to mention it.

Perhaps Spielberg's movie"1941" (produced in 1979) based around the real events triggered something?

But no it seems "The Battle of LA UFO" seems to have been something that did not surface until the late 1980s in any real detail. This is after the infamous MJ-12 documents had been released into the wild and revolves around the alleged Marhsall/Roosevelt Document.

One of it's claims is


This Headquarters has come to a determination that the mystery airplanes are in fact not earthly and according to secret intelligence sources they are in all probability of interplanetary origin.


It also states two unidentified aircraft were recovered, one at sea, and one in the San Bernardino Mountains east of Los Angeles. It says in part:



NOTE THE ABOVE IS NOT AN OFFICIALLY RECOGNISED GOVERNMENT DOCUMENT AND HAS BEEN DEEMED FAKE BY THE FBI

I've tried to clean it up a little bit but it's still suitably illegible in places.

Now if you don't know the history of the MJ-12 documents you probably need be aware that the FBI have declared them totally bogus. Many ufologists have also deemed them to be fabrications as well. Although a number of shall we say, gullible, or commercially exploitive researchers seem to cling to the MJ12 documents as a gospel and still use them as evidence to this day.

Of course I could be wrong in my assumption. But if those are the foundations for the UFO story during the Battle of LA then it doesn't bode well.



posted on Aug, 23 2015 @ 03:28 PM
link   
a reply to: Reallyfolks

Yes it's just a theory that the weather balloon alerted the radar operators and then the twitchy AA Gunners thought they saw something as the search beams crossed and then you have everyone hitting the triggers. Then things get obscured in the smoke and continuing fire. People were seeing all sorts of aircraft in the skies that weren't actually there if you look at the report linked earlier.


But if you have a different theory then instead of just criticising those that don't hold with your belief let us know what you think happened.



posted on Aug, 23 2015 @ 03:43 PM
link   
ever considerd it was an german Vril craft....(ofcourse they never existed after operation paperclip)a reply to: Phage



posted on Aug, 23 2015 @ 04:03 PM
link   
a reply to: tigertatzen

I don't think it's been conclusively proved what it was that triggered the responses that night.

The "The Army Air Forces in World War II report : Free pdf download link states






A careful study of the evidence suggests that meteorological balloons — known to have been released over Los Angeles — may well have caused the initial alarm.

This theory is supported by the fact that anti-aircraft artillery units were officially criticized for having wasted ammunition on targets which moved too slowly to have been airplanes.

After the firing started, careful observation was difficult because of drifting smoke from shell bursts. The acting commander of the anti-aircraft artillery brigade in the area testified that he had first been convinced that he had seen fifteen planes in the air, but had quickly decided that he was seeing smoke. Competent correspondents like Ernie Pyle and Bill Henry witnessed the shooting and wrote that they were never able to make out an airplane.

Page 285 - 286


The alternative is that if it was an alien spacecraft, then the cover up really did work for 45 years or so. None of the Ufologists of the 50s -80s seen to have given it much if any attention. It wasn't until the 'release' of the MJ-12 documents that this started to get any attention as a UFO story.



posted on Aug, 23 2015 @ 04:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: redtic

originally posted by: intrptr

What do you think was going on back in 1942?


War jitters?



That and weather balloons, most likely. Here's a more rational take on the event:

rationalwiki.org...


Weather balloons were released from each of the dozen anti-aircraft positions around the city every six hours. The balloons were illuminated from below by an enclosed candle which would reflect off the silver lining of the balloon itself to ensure that it was visible at night.


So thousands of rounds of anti-aircraft rounds couldn't bring weather balloons down?



posted on Aug, 23 2015 @ 05:25 PM
link   
a reply to: FearYourMind




So thousands of rounds of anti-aircraft rounds couldn't bring weather balloons down?


It's jumping to the assumptions.

And for people that didn't click the hyperlink here is what part of the linked article in redtic's post says:




A careful study of the evidence suggests that meteorological balloons—known to have been released over Los Angeles—may well have caused the initial alarm. This theory is supported by the fact that anti-aircraft artillery units were officially criticized for having wasted ammunition on targets which moved too slowly to have been airplanes......

Nervous spotters and gun crews ordered to be in a "strict state of readiness against renewed attacks" likely contributed to the confused shelling. It also seems probable that many of the shell bursts were themselves mistaken for aircraft and this led to the wildly fluctuating reports on the number, speed and altitude of the aerial objects.


So the 'official' explanation is that much of the AA fire was actually being targeted at the smoke and shell bursts in the nervous excitement of the times not a solid object. It is not saying there was just the one weather balloon floating over LA for hours and being hit by 1400 rounds for a good 30 mins. It was a combination of a number of balloons and well nothing more than people firing at what they thought was a target.

There were a number of weather balloons and there are reports they were fired on. The 'object' in the famous LA Times photo looks a lot less defined in the negative (before it was retouched).



Granted there could be something there. But it's not really as convincing as the 'enhanced' newspaper photo made it first appear and it was never considered a UFO case until the late 1980s.

Like some of the others in this thread I back up what I am saying as fact with information sourced elsewhere. I didn't know the full details of this case when I started the thread. I still don't now.

So you are more than welcome to debate the points made above and/or offer an alternative explanation.


edit on 23/8/15 by mirageman because: forgot to add pic



posted on Aug, 23 2015 @ 06:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Reallyfolks
They have to make sure they have gotten it all . Recall , it was in pieces .



posted on Aug, 23 2015 @ 07:03 PM
link   
a reply to: mirageman

If you can show me criticizing people have it. I said I am open to other things but not a balloon. As someone stated above at some point a cease fire is called to validate what is happening. So not a single officer has the thought after a few minutes , 20 minutes, to call for a cease fire and assess? So a balloon sets off radar, it goes down first hit, people are scared, firing continues for an hour or so after its been downed from hit one and nobody in all that time calls for a cease fire to assess what's going on? Being in the military and specifically working in air defense I can buy a lot, seen some decisions actions, and non actions that make you say "seriously". Working in air defense specifically I can understand how something airborne at night can cause confusion and situations would arise, especially working naked ( ie without ir, tracking, etc) just with the naked eye. Can even understand seeing things that are really their based on several things during night. But taking all that into account I have a real problem believing if this shelling started over next to nothing that it continued for so long and no one, not an officer, not enlisted, not some high ranking officer gathering details from on site reports over the radio who would have not even been part of the commotion or fear factor didn't say, cease fire, visual verification, what's the status? Ok, if that's the story stick to it. Feel free to believe whatever you want. I'm not.

Don't have a clue what it was , but by thinking through it determine what it wasn't. I would say if in fact something was in the sky it was definitely a ufo. Not alien , an object, that was flying, and not identified. But I'm sure I can count on someone to tell me where I'm going wrong.



posted on Aug, 23 2015 @ 08:17 PM
link   
a reply to: mirageman


Speaking of IPU documents, is there any in existance that have been verified by people who work on old documents?



posted on Aug, 24 2015 @ 01:19 AM
link   
a reply to: mirageman

Its really hard to gauge how seriously people in the ufo community take this case(scale of 1-10) or any other for that matter.

I dont recall seeing it the most believable thread

or Isaac's list of best cases from the "experts"

Wait, Isaac has it 95 on his top 100 list.

Bruce Macabee did a long analysis of the picture, but I believe it is also the wrong negative.

Ive had it in the maybe bucket.


Btw, the new sig more than makes up for the last one, very nice.



posted on Aug, 24 2015 @ 05:32 AM
link   

originally posted by: chuck258

originally posted by: iskander683

originally posted by: Aliensun
a reply to: mirageman

Given the incident happened during the beginning of WWII......



Actually, it's just a little thing but the beginning of WW2 was in September 1939, not 1942.



If you want to get all technical, you could even go further back to around 1936 when Japan invaded China. Is it really that big of a deal?


Of course it's a big deal. There's no being technical about it. It's a fact whether you like it or not. WW2 was declared on 1st September 1939.



posted on Aug, 24 2015 @ 05:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: ReallyfolksAs someone stated above at some point a cease fire is called to validate what is happening. So not a single officer has the thought after a few minutes , 20 minutes, to call for a cease fire and assess?

Unless the UFO was firing back, your argument is meaningless. Since we know nothing fired back, the argument they would have called a ceasefire is simply wrong.




top topics



 
102
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join