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: 5
102
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 25 2015 @ 04:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

or, in half the time it took to type that, you could open YouTube, type it in, and prove yourself wrong.
or, not, because you are so right always, why bother?
people here ALWAYS believe whatever YOU say, not the actual evidence.
If that's your brand of "science," we don't need it.

edit on 25-8-2015 by KAOStheory because: (no reason given)

edit on 25-8-2015 by KAOStheory because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 25 2015 @ 09:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Wolfenz
Do you have the original source for that film?
Because there was no video of the incident.


well I haven't really much looked for the actual source

from what I heard Phage that it came from some one that filmed it
for CBS.. and at the beginning of the WWII , CBS did alot of filming in WW2 , which they did ..

but ask yourself why would MSNBC would broadcast
that same 30 second film in the News , for the 25th anniversary
when they were talking about the L.A. Incident in 1942

if its a hoax why would they show, it

you may have a better chance of asking MSNBC or CBS themselves as to how it got caught on film

hey , all i know it that
they Military or News reporters etc..
have different footage of the pearl Harbor harbor during and the aftermath


www.youtube.com...



I would like to think that at the beginning of the war on the mainland of the us
they would have a film crew on stand bye, civilian or military .. a nice guess .

simple thing is why wouldn't they ..

but what only show to the public is only at the least ( 30 seconds ) of the L.A. Battle incident .

as i said Why would MSNBC would show this ?


Hey ATS Members! if any of yous have Info about that 30sec film Footage of what Happened .

Speak up .. ahh i mean Type up ..



Here it is again, the 30second film footage on MSNBC


www.youtube.com...








edit on 22015TuesdayfAmerica/Chicago8236 by Wolfenz because: (no reason given)

edit on 22015TuesdayfAmerica/Chicago8236 by Wolfenz because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2015 @ 02:39 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur




If the 77th street police station observed something fall, my guess it was the remains of the anti-aircraft shells, which left some pretty big chunks, such as the 3" diameter base of the shells apparently didn't disintegrate, and this report mentions him seeing something falling from the explosion in the sky, but doesn't mention what hit the ground:


Yes I went through the video again (which I know you all watched of course as well


It starts off sounding convincing that some kind of secret aircraft (possibly from Muroc/Edwards AFB) may have been making it's way over LA and got caught up in friendly fire coming down in the middle of LA.

But then an aviation historian, Peter Merlin, goes through the possibilities and declares it very unlikely anything would have been tested over central LA at that time.


edit on 25/8/15 by mirageman because: typo



posted on Aug, 25 2015 @ 02:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Kandinsky




Fugo-a-go-go? Those things came a couple of years later. The first launches were 1944.


There was also "Wake me up before your Fugo" by Wham! in 1984

Joking apart. Didn't we once discuss these as being blamed for Roswell as well?



posted on Aug, 25 2015 @ 03:31 PM
link   
a reply to: mirageman



Joking apart. Didn't we once discuss these as being blamed for Roswell as well?


Yeah, Nick Redfern suggested one of them in his Bodysnatchers book.



posted on Aug, 25 2015 @ 05:05 PM
link   
some more


70 Years Later: The Great LA Air Raid Remains a Mystery
The Fort MacArthur Museum holds fundraiser on the 70th Anniversary of one of the greatest mysteries in LA history
www.nbclosangeles.com...


here is a website called the Great l.A. Air Raid
www.theairraid.com...

^^ reason i posted is, there is R Lee Emery ( Mail Call ) aka Gunny Sgt Hartmam (full metal jacket movie)
in a Video talking about the The Spotlights and how they Operated and even himself demonstrating it in how they work , I find interesting as might all of yous find it too , that they were remote controlled my the movement of the operators head in a device that has mounted binoculars in it , something like the head movement on a Huey cobra with a Vulcan cannon . Now if multiple remote control Spotlights with operators focusing at the same place with Binoculars and following its every move. say like 25 miles in a half an house to redondo beach from all different points through fixed binoculars on a device i find interesting , to bad we couldn't find these operators and ask what the hell where they looking at ! more likely they are all dead seeing its 2015 .. as my grandfather was 20 years old when he went to war in WW2 and died a few years back at 90.

so its nice info about the operation of the Spotlight anyways . as i assumed they where all manual ..


ok.. found on you tube

www.youtube.com...







edit on 22015TuesdayfAmerica/Chicago8236 by Wolfenz because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2015 @ 05:37 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.

Weather balloons? Damn, those anti aircraft weapons must have been extremely unreliable.I guess they did no testing before implementing them as defense weapons.



posted on Aug, 25 2015 @ 05:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: CallYourBluff
Weather balloons? Damn, those anti aircraft weapons must have been extremely unreliable.I guess they did no testing before implementing them as defense weapons.
I think that's a true statement that they were unreliable in general and the people using them had little training which made matters worse, but what made matters worse still was the fact that a weather balloon could reach 28000 feet easily and the AA shells couldn't go over 25,000 feet or so, thus making it nearly impossible to shoot down a weather balloon over the maximum altitude capability of the AA rounds.

Even if the aircraft was within range and you exploded a shell near the aircraft, there was no guarantee that a shell fragment would even hit the aircraft. A weather balloon posed a smaller target than an aircraft making it even less likely to be hit. It was very crude technology. Modern missiles are much more reliable.

edit on 2015825 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Aug, 25 2015 @ 06:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: CallYourBluff
Weather balloons? Damn, those anti aircraft weapons must have been extremely unreliable.I guess they did no testing before implementing them as defense weapons.
I think that's a true statement that they were unreliable in general and the people using them had little training which made matters worse, but what made matters worse still was the fact that a weather balloon could reach 28000 feet easily and the AA shells couldn't go over 25,000 feet or so, thus making it nearly impossible to shoot down a weather balloon over the maximum altitude capability of the AA rounds.

Even if the aircraft was within range and you exploded a shell near the aircraft, there was no guarantee that a shell fragment would even hit the aircraft. A weather balloon posed a smaller target than an aircraft making it even less likely to be hit. It was very crude technology. Modern missiles are much more reliable.

If it was a weather balloon at 28000 feet, why was it described as a "huge object"?



posted on Aug, 25 2015 @ 06:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: CallYourBluff
Weather balloons? Damn, those anti aircraft weapons must have been extremely unreliable.I guess they did no testing before implementing them as defense weapons.
I think that's a true statement that they were unreliable in general and the people using them had little training which made matters worse, but what made matters worse still was the fact that a weather balloon could reach 28000 feet easily and the AA shells couldn't go over 25,000 feet or so, thus making it nearly impossible to shoot down a weather balloon over the maximum altitude capability of the AA rounds.

Even if the aircraft was within range and you exploded a shell near the aircraft, there was no guarantee that a shell fragment would even hit the aircraft. A weather balloon posed a smaller target than an aircraft making it even less likely to be hit. It was very crude technology. Modern missiles are much more reliable.


Maybe but even if the balloon was at 28,000 feet the anti aircraft gun in service was M1, I believe 90mm was the one that night see below, max ceiling on those gave over 6000 ft of room if a balloon was at 28,000 feet. Unless I am wrong on the gun, don't think I am the case would not have been a balloon at 28,000 feet with anti aircraft only going 25,000 feet.

Maximum horizontal: 17,823 m (58,474 ft)
Maximum ceiling: 10,380 m (34,060 ft) (limited by 30 second fuse)

en.m.wikipedia.org...



posted on Aug, 25 2015 @ 07:35 PM
link   
a reply to: mirageman

Well, this is more data all in one place than I personally have reviewed before. I haven't looked at older threads much, to be fair. Overall, considering all of the data, I have to state something I really don't want to state. It looks like it really might have been a weather balloon. One was seen, and it's possible that there was a scare because the shock of Pearl Harbor was so fresh. Planes scrambled, as a sensible precaution, before anyone knew that a balloon had been launched, would certainly make sense. Haven't watched the video yet, though, so that opinion could change.

Very cool case, at any rate, and S&F for all the effort! Will have to get back to this one when I have more time, and check it out further.



posted on Aug, 25 2015 @ 07:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur

I doubt they were weather balloons and just from a soldier's POV seeing them as a weather balloon or balloons don't provide a quite conclusive evidence. And after all. the US Air force concluded the case with weather balloons as the cause in 1985. That's 33 years after the incident, many have gotten old and probably don't remember much about it now.
Another UFO event similar to this happened in 1952 near the White House known as the 1952 Washington DC UFO incident.

There are other accounts of similar encounters and such events that have taken place in many cities around the world. And there are foo fighters, Roswell incident, Mexican Air Force videotaping, oh and a similar battle of LA like incident also happened in Seoul, Korea in 1976... just too many to list.



posted on Aug, 25 2015 @ 09:46 PM
link   
Seeing blimps were at their pinnacle between WW1 and WW2 Im maybe thinking thats what it was...Shooting down one of your own wouldn,t be broadcast due to the PR ...
USN Blimps WW2
The other thing it could be is a barrage balloon,used to stop low flying bombers.



On October 12, 1942, just after 6:00 a.m., a U.S. Army barrage balloon, trailing 1,000 feet of steel cable, drifts over Seattle shorting out power lines and starting a fire. Power is lost to the Magnolia Bluff neighborhood, Lake Union, and Capitol Hill and the City Light steam plant is damaged.

edit on 25-8-2015 by Blackfinger because: added



posted on Aug, 25 2015 @ 10:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: CallYourBluff
Weather balloons? Damn, those anti aircraft weapons must have been extremely unreliable.I guess they did no testing before implementing them as defense weapons.
I think that's a true statement that they were unreliable in general and the people using them had little training which made matters worse, but what made matters worse still was the fact that a weather balloon could reach 28000 feet easily and the AA shells couldn't go over 25,000 feet or so, thus making it nearly impossible to shoot down a weather balloon over the maximum altitude capability of the AA rounds.

Even if the aircraft was within range and you exploded a shell near the aircraft, there was no guarantee that a shell fragment would even hit the aircraft. A weather balloon posed a smaller target than an aircraft making it even less likely to be hit. It was very crude technology. Modern missiles are much more reliable.


ahhh you do realize in the air raid of L.A. in 1942 photos and the 30sec or 6 sec video
that it shows AA flack above and over the claimed object .


the sound locators to detect planes for the operator of the search light to follow .
the maximum is around 26,832 feet

i don't think there is anything that was mentioned about sound locators in
the Battle of LA Air raid incident those men must of been off duty, that night.

if anyone interested this is what i was going by Artillery field manual

Coast Artillery Field Manual, Antiaircraft Artillery, Position Finding and Control, Antiaircraft Search-lights
(US War Department, 1940)
www.ibiblio.org...

so Now I understand that not only visual with fixed binoculars on a remote control Searchlight
it also could of used Sound, like a Radar to detect objects in the sky.
but did they use sound locators during the Battle of Los Angeles ?

How Were World War II Searchlights Used?
www.skylighters.org...


and wouldnt the Military knew about weather balloons around the area in the first place..

War Jitters perhaps , but alot of thing , to be dont sound right ,

Especially the CBS Broadcast Report, and the Witness Claims. of seeing it in the Searchlights and saying
either they were long shaped Oval or Bell Shaped. or even looking like a silver bug lol

Nice Trailer Jose Escamilla as most have very big doubts on him ..

www.youtube.com...


from seeing this trailer

and the supposed 1942 film

that Jose Escamilla claims came from a individual that sent him it with or ufo footage reels

and other rumors that the footage was from the CBS Network

I would like to see if Jose Escamilla could have that reel examined of being legit
and the film came from that exact era. 1942

Highly Doubt that would Happen ......


some more little info

like things detected on radar then order the black out, and
names of officials that were involved that jitterish night ..

www.youtube.com...=296




edit on 22015TuesdayfAmerica/Chicago8236 by Wolfenz because: (no reason given)

edit on 22015TuesdayfAmerica/Chicago8236 by Wolfenz because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2015 @ 05:32 PM
link   
a reply to: Wolfenz

You've brought some interesting points to debate into this thread. So I thank you for all your diligent work

The guy who does those UFO Case Reviews on Youtube is actually better than a lot of TV companies at it as well!

It seems to me that with the clouds of war overshadowing this story we may never know if was simply nerves or something else.
edit on 26/8/15 by mirageman because: typo



posted on Aug, 26 2015 @ 10:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: mirageman
a reply to: Wolfenz

You've brought some interesting points to debate into this thread. So I thank you for all your diligent work

The guy who does those UFO Case Reviews on Youtube is actually better than a lot of TV companies at it as well!

It seems to me that with the clouds of war overshadowing this story we may never know if was simply nerves or something else.


thanks mirageman,


been fascinated about this, one of the first Air Raid Events on US Soil
, for a long time since at least the 80s

I try to dig deep , and look at it all directions ,, A good memory Helps too.
when you look at documentary's articles , books about the event ,
but most of all that literature.. don't actually explain much about the crew
and the artillery equipment & weapons. not only the that the military was
involved , there was civilian volunteers guards acting like civil defense,

I was oblivious , what was all part of the coastal Searchlight Crew ..
I Never Knew that Sound Locators existed and finding out that
the big ass sound horns are directed to a suspected target and to find the
distance and location where planes are, working like a Radar Ping ....
to confirm of something solid. they eventually became obsolete of course,
when the RADAR became more Effective ,, but no mention of them being used
and if they were used from that crazy Night in Feb 2Xth 1942 with binoculars.
but there was Radars 270s detecting objects in the sky that night,
and other evidence as when the Radar was detecting tracking the object ,
caused the result in a controlled in purpose Blackout of the City in the first place ..



a little more info.. well this is interesting

THE BATTLE OF LOS ANGELES

WORLD WAR II ERA SCR-268 RADAR SYSTEM. OPERATIONAL
RANGE 22 MILES

The Radar Dilemma
the-wanderling.com...


I haven't confirm of these reports, if they are legit,
but they sound like they are


"At 0144 an SCR-268 picked up an unidentifiable aerial target 120 miles
west of Los Angeles...well tracked by radar."

History of the 4th AA Command, Western Defense Command,
January 9 1942 -July 1, 1945, Chapter V Defense Operations on the West Coast.
(3)Par 5, App B, Doc 29 (Conference Report, 25 Feb 42)



"Radars picked up an unidentified target 120 miles west of Los Angeles."
The Army Air Forces in World War II U.S. Government Printing Office



"At 0144 an SCR-268 (3-T-4) picked up an unidentifiable aerial target
(confirmed by two 270s); at 0200 there appeared on the Information Center's
Operation Board an unidentified "target 120 miles west of Los Angeles...
well tracked by radar, by 1st Lt Kenneth R. Martin."

History of the 4th AA Command, Western Defense Command,
January 9 1942 -July 1, 1945, Chapter V Defense Operations on the West Coast.
(3)Par 5, App B, Doc 29 (Conference Report, 25 Feb 42)





yeah I know my spelling grammar and missed words suck

sometimes i don't catch the mistakes till that dam
4 hour time limit to fix things. and reason why i usually get ignored
most of the time lol.. and sounding like a foreigner



edit on 32015WednesdayfAmerica/Chicago8237 by Wolfenz because: (no reason given)

edit on 32015WednesdayfAmerica/Chicago8237 by Wolfenz because: fixing the # ups of grammar



posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 11:38 AM
link   
There is a lot of good information on here. Thank you for the post



posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 11:53 AM
link   
a reply to: mirageman



It starts off sounding convincing that some kind of secret aircraft (possibly from Muroc/Edwards AFB) may have been making it's way over LA and got caught up in friendly fire coming down in the middle of LA.

But then an aviation historian, Peter Merlin, goes through the possibilities and declares it very unlikely anything would have been tested over central LA at that time.


I agree that no test were conducted at that time. I also find it interesting that Muroc AFB is mentioned because flying saucers were reported over Muroc AFB, and Rogers Dry Lake Bed by the Air Force just days after the Roswell incident.



posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 12:21 PM
link   
a reply to: Wolfenz

When the UFO was first detected and the time it was tracked to within a few miles of the coast, indicates that the velocity of the UFO was far too high to have been a balloon.

In addition, the UFO eventually reversed its coarse, which is another clue the UFO was not a balloon. Contact with the UFO was soon lost as the object headed back over the Pacific Ocean.

We can also go here.

Battle of Los Angeles UFO Photographic Comparison



posted on Aug, 27 2015 @ 02:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Wolfenz

Yes interesting that the object was detected by radars (i.e more than one). Although it was very primitive in those days,

I don't recall any of the AA gunners mentioning firing at a huge craft so will have to go away and check on that.

I think at best we have a case of a possible unidentified object and at worse it was all war jitters.



new topics

top topics



 
102
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join