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: 8
102
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 02:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Wolfenz

I meant , before the they called for Artillery Fire.. or just as it left into the pacific
That's a good question. If there actually was an object being tracked by radar, why were no aircraft launched?

There was no hesitation to launch with the "2nd Pearl Harbor" incident.



and usually mean's they the plane's engines are running.
and the pilots are in the cockpit.
No. They didn't leave the engines running, you'd end up with a partially fueled aircraft. But on a scramble the ground crews would start the engines before the pilots reached them.



and for it being propagation .. seeing the day before
Anomalous propagation is a term used for the appearance of false radar returns due to weather and/or sea conditions.




posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 03:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage



Ok. Where does it say the planes were tracked?
If they were tracked, how is it they managed to penetrate all the air defenses and drop their bombs without a shot being fired at them? At that time US radar installations, and training, sucked (to put it mildly).


Let's take a look here.



. Kaui radar first picked up the flying boats about twenty miles off the coast, headed toward Oahu. The alert went out. Fighter planes were scrambled, searchlights turned on, and anti-aircraft guns manned. But it was a moonless, rainy night and even with vectors from the WARD radar operators, the fighter planes had no success in finding the flying boats.

Due to the cloud cover, the Japanese planes also could not find their targets and had to drop their bombs blind, some of which hit inland from the harbor and two at the harbor entrance. No ships were damaged. The flying boats returned to their base.


In other words, radar did in fact, track the Japanese aircraft, but due to bad weather, American aircraft were unable to intercept the Japanese aircraft and the Japanese were unable to identify their targets, which is why they blindly dropped their bombs.



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 03:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Wolfenz


and for it being propagation .. seeing the day before
Anomalous propagation is a term used for the appearance of false radar returns due to weather and/or sea conditions.


Having used radar following for years, I know that radar operators can easily differentiate between anomalous propagation and real aircraft.



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 03:36 PM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409




In other words, radar did in fact, track the Japanese aircraft,
Ok. Based on that, I agree that the aircraft were tracked. At least for a while.

I wonder why no planes were launched over L.A. if there was a definitive and tracked contact.
edit on 8/30/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 04:25 PM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409




Having used radar following for years, I know that radar operators can easily differentiate between anomalous propagation and real aircraft.

How much time did you have on the SCR-270? Not exactly what you're used to, I think.

The unit's heart was the oscilloscope that gave a picture similar to a heart monitor in hospitals today. The operator would move the antenna through a given arc until the line across the bottom showed a small spike or pip. By adjusting the antenna and the controls, the pip was enhanced until the operator could tell the approximate distance to the target. Next, the operator looked out the window to a plate mounted on the antenna base, with an arrow on it that would give the direction of the contact. Unlike today's radar scopes, the antenna did not oscillate and there was no constant repainting of the picture on the scope. This system did not tell an incoming target's altitude, its size or number, nor did it differentiate friend from foe.
www.skylighters.org...

Understanding the spikes on the oscilloscope required interpretation. I think it's entirely possible that the radar operators were fooled and did not have a true track on an actual object

You may have years of experience, these guys did not.

Personnel to operate the radars had not been carefully selected and were inadequate both in numbers and in training. The United States was found to have repeated an early error of Britain in failing to provide for the training of large numbers of skilled radar technicians.
www.ibiblio.org...



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 04:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: skyeagle409
Having used radar following for years, I know that radar operators can easily differentiate between anomalous propagation and real aircraft.
When radar tracked UFOs in the Belgian flap, it was later determined that the data showed the UFOs would actually be subterranean, or traveling underground and not flying. This leads me to question the accuracy of your claim about how easy it is to identify anomalous propagation. If it was that easy that data never would have received all the attention it did. I would add that Belgian radar equipment was far more advanced than what was used in 1942, and in fact there are advances every decade in radar technology.

Modern radars would probably filter out objects which appeared to be traveling underground and thus were likely anomalous propagation signals. The further back in time, generally speaking, the less accurate the radar technology. 1942 is going back a loooong time. Poor training certainly didn't help either.



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 06:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Wolfenz

I meant , before the they called for Artillery Fire.. or just as it left into the pacific
That's a good question. If there actually was an object being tracked by radar, why were no aircraft launched?

There was no hesitation to launch with the "2nd Pearl Harbor" incident.



and usually mean's they the plane's engines are running.
and the pilots are in the cockpit.
No. They didn't leave the engines running, you'd end up with a partially fueled aircraft. But on a scramble the ground crews would start the engines before the pilots reached them.



and for it being propagation .. seeing the day before
Anomalous propagation is a term used for the appearance of false radar returns due to weather and/or sea conditions.





why werent the intercepters launched ..? and if it was going so slow !
why didnt they have the intercepters go up and take it down ?
as for being so slow the object from what i read the Japanese
float planes can go slow as 85 miles an hour. unless it was way more then one.



Thanks for the Info

yeah Scramble is more like it ,
your right the crew preps the planes before the pilot gets to the plane ,
prop planes I was forgetting lol any how stand by...
I was Wrong on that one, i wasnt talking about during the event
it was before . that half an hour of Flack & shelling ..
but i have seen jets preped up running and pilots in the cockpit
just sitting onthe runway ready to go. and wating for the control tower
to say the can take off.. but that jets fighters we are talking about ,
way differnt from prop planes.. wasnt having that train of thought lol.




Anomalous propagation is a term used for the appearance of false radar returns due to weather and/or sea conditions.


well dont I feel like a Idiot LOL ..
I got what i deserved not looking up the term.


Speaking of Anomalous propagation.
what was the weather condtions or sea condtions
on that Night. I dont know .. time to check .




AHHHH WTF!!! is this !! yeah Punded!!

From National Geographic (BLOG) a BIG WTF
Posted by patrickjkiger


The anti-aircraft gunners eventually stopped firing, to avoid hitting 40 U.S. P-38 fighters that had arrived to defend the city. But the P-38s, oddly didn’t find any enemy aircraft to fight. They circled and then returned to their home field.

tvblogs.nationalgeographic.com...

^^^^ SO Im guessing that what Bryon Palmer was talking about perhaps ^^^ ??
and Mr Littlton as a child said he saw ? a group of planes ??
and where, did this OP patrickjkiger get that info from???


The OP continues ..

Later that day, Secretary of the Navy Frank Knox told reporters at a press conference that the attack had been a false alarm. That, however, didn’t explain the mysterious object that showed up on radar, or all the witnesses who claimed to have seen the attacking planes. Army officials subsequently developed another hypothesis. The raiders, they speculated, may have been civilian-style light aircraft, launched either from Japanese submarines or from secret airfields established by the enemy in California or Mexico, as a psychological warfare stunt.

tvblogs.nationalgeographic.com...





edit on 02015SundayfAmerica/Chicago8241 by Wolfenz because: (no reason given)


I was thinking ...

So if that is true ,about the
a group of p 38 planes coming to defend the city from another area.
and they took off to intercept from just hearing that enemy aircraft
aka bogey has been detected in L.A. .. it would make sense for the
Squadron group of p38scoming to the action from a distance away.
that would be a mystery of where they would of came from.
if it did happen,


So here is

California World War II Army Airfields
en.wikipedia.org...



edit on 02015SundayfAmerica/Chicago8241 by Wolfenz because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 08:13 PM
link   
hmm this is intersting

a lot of info about the Japanese subs on the us west coast


Japanese Submarines Prowl the U.S. Pacific Coastline in 1941
HistoryNet Staff
6/12/2006
www.historynet.com...


The nine subs were strategically located–based on prewar intelligence–to give them the best opportunity to attack the shipping lanes most commonly used by American merchantmen. Four subs, I-19, I-15, I-25 and I-26, were ordered to the most important locations: I-19 off Los Angeles Harbor, I-15 off San Francisco Bay, I-25 off the mouth of the Columbia River and I-26 off the Strait of Juan de Fuca, the important waterway leading into and out of the port of Seattle. The remaining five subs, assigned to locations that had been deemed less crucial, would nonetheless see the most action: I-9 off Cape Blanco, Ore.; I-17 off Cape Mendocino, Calif.; I-23 off Monterey Bay, Calif.; I-21 off Estero Bay, Calif.; and I-10 off San Diego



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 08:54 PM
link   
a reply to: Arbitrageur



When radar tracked UFOs in the Belgian flap, it was later determined that the data showed the UFOs would actually be subterranean, or traveling underground and not flying.


That is incorrect and I have had to correct people over the years as well. In regard to the Belgian incident, people did not understand that 0000 means between 0 and 500. 0 is sea level; mean ground altitude in the area in question is about 200 feet therefore 0000 means between 200 and 500 feet AGL. At no time did the radar depict the UFO striking the ground and neither did ground-based radar systems that were also tracking the same object. That type of radar cannot track an object below ground level, which should have told people that they needed to do some homework.



This leads me to question the accuracy of your claim about how easy it is to identify anomalous propagation.


It is easy for radar controllers to identify anomalous propagation and since we are talking aviation safety in controlled airspace, it becomes that much more important because radar controllers cannot afford to misidentify anomalous propagation in controlled airspace while in control of other aircraft. Radar controller, Harry Barnes summed it up this way:



"Inversion blips are always recognized by experts, we are familiar with what weather conditions, flying birds, and [other] such things can cause on radar."

Harry Barnes: Radar Controller


The radar operators noted that temperature inversions on radar are typically weak returns and move at a slow ground speed.



If it was that easy that data never would have received all the attention it did. I would add that Belgian radar equipment was far more advanced than what was used in 1942, and in fact there are advances every decade in radar technology.


In regard to the Belgian data, there were multiple and dissimilar ground-based radar systems that also confirmed the radar contacts of the two F-16's.


Modern radars would probably filter out objects which appeared to be traveling underground and thus were likely anomalous propagation signals. The further back in time, generally speaking, the less accurate the radar technology. 1942 is going back a loooong time. Poor training certainly didn't help either.


Radar in those days were more reliable than people think. In fact, the CAA, now the FAA, had determined in 1952 that radar was reliable enough to use for air traffic control operations.

edit on 30-8-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 09:00 PM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409



Radar in those days were more reliable than people think. In fact, the CAA, now the FAA, had determined that radar was reliable enough to be used for air traffic control operations.

The radar we are talking about? Citation?

That would not be the conclusion based on an assessment of the coastal defense system:

All radar experts were agreed that each set represented a compromise between a variety of demands, but the principal American radar was "unique in combining slow search with poor cover in elevation, with lack of all facilities for eight finding, and with a grave danger of plotting false tracks." Moreover, dependable employment of this radar had been made even more unlikely because of a mistake in the selection of sites for its installation. Personnel to operate the radars had not been carefully selected and were inadequate both in numbers and in training.

www.ibiblio.org...
The equipment and operators sucked.
edit on 8/30/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 09:17 PM
link   
a reply to: Phage

In regard to the second Pearl Harbor attack, we know that radar did in fact, track the Japanese aircraft and that was confirmed after the Japanese aircraft dropped their bombs when they were unable to identify their targets.

In other words, the radar systems on both islands detected and tracked those aircraft despite the difficult weather conditions.
edit on 30-8-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 30 2015 @ 09:20 PM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409

Yes. I acknowledged that. Are you claiming that somehow demonstrates that the LA contacts were not false returns?

How about the event that occurred on Oahu a few days later?
When a false alarm generated by a radar contact by the army created a lot of ruckus on Oahu, including an immediate launch of interceptors. It was in full daylight but even then things got pretty far out of hand. It seems that Los Angeles was not the only place where the army was jumpy and took quite a bit of heat for it (especially from the Navy).
books.google.com...#
edit on 8/30/2015 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 12:56 AM
link   
a reply to: Phage

In regard to the March 7, 1942 incident, it stated that military control center picked up Japanese conversations and assumed the conversations were between aircraft. It sounds to me like a bad case of reporting that was sometimes the case, which had nothing to do with the radars because American aircraft that were sent aloft were soon cluttering up the radar screen.

In regards to the SCR-268, it was improved even before it was used in the war and the SCR-270 proved its worth in 1939, where its reliability caused an officer to lose a bet over some beer. In some cases, that radar even tracked aircraft as far as 150 miles away.


edit on 31-8-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 04:00 AM
link   
a reply to: skyeagle409

Yes. I saw the "UFOs Declassified" program on the Canadian version of the History Channel. Ben Hanson made a compelling case. I respect Mr. Hanson as a UFO researcher since he was a former FBI investigator. I was impressed by Hanson's visual profile of former US President Bill Clinton on the Jimmy Kimmel show when he was asked about Roswell. Clinton had more tells in that interview then he had at the Monica Lewensky(sic) investigation.

One thing that episode missed was that if you had a reverse image of the negative of the bombardment and superimposed it over the actual negative, one can see a UFO. I believe this was done on UFO Hunters show with Bill Birnes.



posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 04:11 AM
link   
As much as I believe in the existence of life on other planets, possibly life that has even visited our planet, but there are not many cases and even fewer pictures and videos that actually hold up under scrutiny or actually depict something otherworldly or alien.

As much as I believe, you have to say that frankly the photographic/video evidence is abysmal in reality.



posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 12:20 PM
link   
a reply to: stargatetravels

The reason why I am a believer is because one of those objects passed over my base in 1968 in Vietnam after approaching from over the sea and needless to say, it was an eye opener. My next base was involved in investigations regarding UFOs that were shutting down our Minuteman missiles.

I should also mention that the Air Force had acknowledged on multiple occasions that the UFOs in question are, in the Air Force's own words: "Interplanetary spaceships."



posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 03:31 PM
link   


Somewhat misleading final paragraph in the post above.



Source : www.af.mil...

Whilst certain members of the US Air Forces may have concluded individually that UFOs were "Interplanetary Spaceships" , this has never been the official position of the US Air Force as an organisation. Nor has it ever confirmed any object as an "interplanetary spaceship" except when referring to our own human space vehicles.



posted on Aug, 31 2015 @ 10:03 PM
link   
a reply to: mirageman



Somewhat misleading final paragraph in the post above.


Not misleading in the least. What you posted was misleading thanks to the Air Force, which is typical of the way the Air Force does business when it wants to mislead the public. If you are going to post a reference to the Air Force, you had better know the rest of the story before you post because the Air Force is in the business of duping gullible people.

Case in point is the Roswell incident and Project Mogul, but what the Air Force never said in its 1994 Roswell Report is that Project Mogul and Project Skyhook balloon teams were tracking flying saucers over New Mexico. In the following report, at what altitude were the UFOs seen hovering over New Mexico? Answer: 200 miles.

Flying Saucer Report

Navy Officer Tells
HOW SCIENTISTS TRACKED A FLYING SAUCER
by Commander Robert B. McLaughlin, USN

In its January issue TRUE said that the flying saucers are real and interplanetary. Its story was widely supported by the nation's press and radio. TRUE's findings are here confirmed by Commander McLaughlin, a rocket expert at White Sands Proving Ground, who worked independently of this magazine's investigation. He reveals how a troop of Navy men and scientists tracked a flying disk with a precision instrument and tells of flights he and others witnessed.

Admiral Robert McLaughlin's Letter to Dr. Van Allen

Now, let's take a another look at the Air Force.



Conclusion UFOs Are Space Ships Given SAC in 1952

A 1952 evaluation of "flying saucers" as interplanetary devices, sent to Strategic Air Command Headquarters from MacDill AFB, has been disclosed to NICAP

MANEUVERED MOTION AND "INTELLIGENT CONTROL

Following the nearly year-long 1952 UFO sighting wave in which there were repeated instances of jet interceptors chasing after UFOs that also showed on radar, the Central Intelligence Agency convened the so-called Robertson Panel to evaluate the data. Among the presentations made to the scientific panel was one by Dewey J. Fournet (USAF, Ret.) who had worked with scientific analysts conducting a rigorous motion analysis study of hardcore unexplained cases.

www.nicap.org...

Edward J. Ruppelt, former Chief of the Air Force Project Blue Book investigation, later reported that the study was "very hot and very controversial...[it] was hot because it wasn't official and the reason it wasn't official was because it was so hot. It concluded that UFOs were interplanetary spaceships."

Air Force analysts had reached this conclusion before. Project Sign in 1948 had issued a Top Secret Estimate of the Situation drawing the same conclusion. (Hall, 1964, p. 110) But both times outside scientific consultants, on the basis of what were arguably superficial and excessively skeptical reviews, disputed the conclusion. (Hall, 1988, pp. 155-163)

Many of these jet interception cases included a sort of "cat-and-mouse" behavior on the part of the UFOs, pulling away from the pursuing jets and then slowing down until they caught up again. This behavior has been repeated throughout the history of UFOs, and is one of the many indicators of intelligence behind the phenomenon. Case after case can be cited of UFOs apparently playing interactive games with (a) military aircraft.


As you can see, my previous post was not misleading as you had incorrectly implied. I know much, much more about the U.S. Air Force and UFOs than you think because two of my bases have been involved while on active duty.
edit on 31-8-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 1 2015 @ 02:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: mirageman


Not misleading in the least. What you posted was misleading thanks to the Air Force, which is typical of the way the Air Force does business when it wants to mislead the public. If you are going to post a reference to the Air Force, you had better know the rest of the story before you post because the Air Force is in the business of duping gullible people.

Case in point is the Roswell incident and Project Mogul, but what the Air Force never said in its 1994 Roswell Report is that Project Mogul and Project Skyhook balloon teams were tracking flying saucers over New Mexico. In the following report, at what altitude were the UFOs seen hovering over New Mexico? Answer: 200 miles.

Flying Saucer Report



I read that letter? Can you tell me where it states that the objects seen were "Interplanetary Spacecraft". Never mind that the USAF confirmed they were. Plus as we have seen in this thread operating the the SCR-270 radar was not like operating a radar today and was quite a tricky business. So all we know is something was tracked.





Navy Officer Tells
HOW SCIENTISTS TRACKED A FLYING SAUCER
by Commander Robert B. McLaughlin, USN

In its January issue TRUE said that the flying saucers are real and interplanetary. Its story was widely supported by the nation's press and radio. TRUE's findings are here confirmed by Commander McLaughlin, a rocket expert at White Sands Proving Ground, who worked independently of this magazine's investigation. He reveals how a troop of Navy men and scientists tracked a flying disk with a precision instrument and tells of flights he and others witnessed.

Admiral Robert McLaughlin's Letter to Dr. Van Allen



This is a letter talking about a 'saucer sighting' and does not suggest it is an interplanetary spacecraft. TRUE magazine I'm afraid is not the official voice of the US Air Force. The letter you linked quotes the opinion of someone and was not the official position of the USAF (seeing as it's the Navy's officer too!).




Now, let's take a another look at the Air Force.



Conclusion UFOs Are Space Ships Given SAC in 1952

A 1952 evaluation of "flying saucers" as interplanetary devices, sent to Strategic Air Command Headquarters from MacDill AFB, has been disclosed to NICAP

MANEUVERED MOTION AND "INTELLIGENT CONTROL

Following the nearly year-long 1952 UFO sighting wave in which there were repeated instances of jet interceptors chasing after UFOs that also showed on radar, the Central Intelligence Agency convened the so-called Robertson Panel to evaluate the data. Among the presentations made to the scientific panel was one by Dewey J. Fournet (USAF, Ret.) who had worked with scientific analysts conducting a rigorous motion analysis study of hardcore unexplained cases.

www.nicap.org...

Edward J. Ruppelt, former Chief of the Air Force Project Blue Book investigation, later reported that the study was "very hot and very controversial...[it] was hot because it wasn't official and the reason it wasn't official was because it was so hot. It concluded that UFOs were interplanetary spaceships."

Air Force analysts had reached this conclusion before. Project Sign in 1948 had issued a Top Secret Estimate of the Situation drawing the same conclusion. (Hall, 1964, p. 110) But both times outside scientific consultants, on the basis of what were arguably superficial and excessively skeptical reviews, disputed the conclusion. (Hall, 1988, pp. 155-163)

Many of these jet interception cases included a sort of "cat-and-mouse" behavior on the part of the UFOs, pulling away from the pursuing jets and then slowing down until they caught up again. This behavior has been repeated throughout the history of UFOs, and is one of the many indicators of intelligence behind the phenomenon. Case after case can be cited of UFOs apparently playing interactive games with (a) military aircraft.








The spaceship conclusion was based on numerous AF sighting reports, especially those in the MacDill area. It was drawn up by the MacDill UFO project officer, an AF intelligence captain with whom Widener served. As a member of the project, Widener had access to official AF sighting reports, some of which have never been released.

"Captain ---------- and I drafted a report to SAC Headquarters," Widener has told NICAP. "It stated that in our opinion the unknown objects were of extraterrestrial origin. I imagine that his report is still gathering dust!"



The "Estimate of the Situation" has never been unearthed so we cannot read what it said for ourselves. Whilst the staff working on Project Sign may have concluded "interplanetary spacecraft" it was not adopted as the position of the US Air Force. USAF Major Dewey J. Fournet, who as an Air Force major in the Pentagon served as liaison with official UFO project head quartered at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base was described as being "unimpressed" with the Estimate, and it was merely "extreme extrapolation based on scant evidence".

Source : military.wikia.com...



According to your evidence you've posted, only the "Estimate.." document confirms that some USAF employees expressed the opinion that "Interplanetary spaceships" existed (this was back in 1948). However as that document has never entered the public domain we can't verify it for ourselves and the " Air Force" as an organisation never adopted that position.

You may have had your own experiences and believe UFOs to be "interplanetary spacecraft" and I am not saying they don't exist. But what you appear to believe shows proof isn't. Otherwise it would have been widely accepted wouldn't it?

There is absolutely no proof UFOs are controlled by beings from other planets. UFOs could be,but they also could be many other things.

Now can we get back on topic without you once again hijacking threads and thinking that posting walls of text makes your point look impressive.

So Battle of LA - 1942 carry on....................

edit on 1/9/15 by mirageman because: edits



posted on Sep, 1 2015 @ 09:51 PM
link   
a reply to: mirageman

[QUOTE]
The "Estimate of the Situation" has never been unearthed so we cannot read what it said for ourselves.[/QUOTE]

The 1948 Project Sign EOTS, USAF, ATIC, Wright-Patterson AFB, was declassified, and then, ordered destroyed by General Hoyt Vandenberg. It was done to the dismay of Air Force and civilian personnel based at Wright-Patterson AFB.

The following is the 1947 Twining Memo, which was written before the Air Force's 1948 EOTS.



General Nathan Twining Memo

Twining Memo Page 1

Twining Memo Page 2

Twining Memo Page 3


And then, there was the Wilbur Smith memo.



Wilbur Smith Memo

I made discreet enquiries through the Canadian Embassy
staff in Washington who were able to obtain for me the following
information:

a. The matter is the most highly classified subject in the United
States Government, rating higher even than the H-bomb.

b. Flying saucers exist.

c. Their modus operandi is unknown but concentrated effort is
being made by a small group headed by Doctor Vannevar Bush.

d. The entire matter is considered by the United States authorities
to be of tremendous significance.

roswellproof.homestead.com...


In 1952, the USAF ordered its pilots to shoot down flying saucers if they refused to land.

USAF Orders Its Pilots to Shoot Down Flying
Saucers


'Flying Saucers' Devices from Outer Space

It was that Marine pilot, Donald Keyhoe, who was about to reveal what the government knew about flying saucers on live TV on January 22, 1958, which was on the CBS Circle Star Theater.



What Happen On the CBS Program, The Armstrong Circle Star Theater, On January 22, 1958?

"1958 Major Donald Keyhoe, Director of the National Investigations Committee on Aerial Phenomenon (NICAP), appeared as a guest on the "Armstrong Circle Theater Show." He had planned to make an announcement about what the United States government knew about UFOs.

He began by stating, "And now I'm going to reveal something that has never been disclosed before...for the last six months we have been working with a congressional committee investigating official secrecy about UFOs..." At that moment the producer of the show (CBS) cut the audio and the public was not able to hear the remainder of Major Keyhoe's statement.

Later it was determined to have been done because of pressure from Air Force "spokesmen" in the interest of national security."


Eventually, it came down to this:



Government is covering up UFO evidence, group says

THE WASHINGTON TIMES

The U.S. government has been covering up evidence of extraterrestrial visits for more than 50 years, an array of 20 retired Air Force, Federal Aviation Administration and intelligence officers said Wednesday.

They demanded Congress hold hearings on what they say is long-standing secret U.S. involvement with UFOs and extraterrestrials.

www.wanttoknow.info...


Military Nuclear Specialists Testify To UFO Reality

www.cohenufo......O... Reality.htm

______________________________________

"Reliable reports indicate there are objects coming into our atmosphere at very high speeds and controlled by thinking intelligence."
.
-Rear Admiral Delmar Fahrney, U.S. Navy Missile Chief

Admiral Roscoe H. Hillenkoetter

Unknown objects are operating under intelligent control... It is imperative that we learn where UFO's come from and what their purpose is...

Admiral Roscoe H. Hillenkoetter Director, Central Intelligence Agency 1947-1950


UFOs entering earth's atmosphere has been confirmed to me personally by a former engineer of Aerojet, near Sacramento, CA. Ron Regehr, helped developed the DSP surveillance satellite and it has been confirmed that DSP satellites, in conjunction with other deep space surveillance assets, have detected the objects up to 500 times per year and that DSP satellites have been detecting them 2-3 times per month as they arrive from deep space.

In the 1984 incident, one of the objects manuevered within a few miles of a DSP satellite where it curved back into deep space, which occurred over 20,000 miles above earth. He went so far as to describe to me, the shape of one of the UFOs that was tracked by another type space surveillance asset. He couldn't tell me but I assume that it was an optical surveillance system.

Dr. Carl Sagan was made aware that the Air Force was tracking certain objects in space that were not meteors, stars, ballistic missiles nor spacecraft. He made the request in 1968 to obtain space surveillance radar data , but since such data was classified, I don't think the Air Force honored Dr. Sagan's request.

I might add that it was a DSP satellite that tracked the UFOs during the 1976 Iranian incident.

Continue:



In concealing the evidence of UFO operations, the Air Force is making a serious mistake."
.
-Lt. Colonel James McAshan, USAF

www.ufoeviden...nts...


Look what else was in the headlines in 1952.

Saucer Outran Air Force Jet

And, you might want to review this manual.



FireFighters UFO Manual (UFO)

Subject: Firefighters FEMA UFO training manual]

www.greatdreams.com...




USAF Major Dewey J. Fournet, who as an Air Force major in the Pentagon served as liaison with official UFO project head quartered at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base was described as being "unimpressed" with the Estimate, and it was merely "extreme extrapolation based on scant evidence".


I don't know where you go that from when it was Dewey Fournet who was the Air Force officer who wrote the intelligent report of 1952 that confirmed that UFOs were under intelligence control. Check it out.



Dewey Fournet

Dewey Fournet was our liaison officer in the Pentagon. He was probably the most thoroughly convinced believer that UFOs were interplanetary spaceships that I knew.

We used to argue for hours every time I went to Washington. He was the ringleader of the group in the Directorate of Intelligence that believed. His "Top Secret" study created a lot of excitement by concluding that UFOs were spaceships.

www.nicap.org...


I am very sure that more will eventually come out into the open about the 1942 Battle of Los Angeles incident as well and I feel it is just a matter of time before the rest of the story is told.
edit on 1-9-2015 by skyeagle409 because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
102
<< 5  6  7    9 >>

log in

join