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.

 

Battle of LA - Army Fires on UFO in 1942

page: 10
15
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 10:57 AM
link   


AAA defence then was about shooting up a screen of fragments to damage the fragile elements of an aircraft. Not marksmanship. I think proximity and altitude were the fuses of the day..you had to only get close.....well close..ish.


All good points, just to supplement them, in 1942 just the timer fuse for AA shells, no proximity fuse yet. For large-caliber guns, for 20mm and so it was still good old impact fuse.




posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by Denied
So out of curiosity what do you think it was, what could with stand that amount of firepower being thrown at it if it was a conventional plane or whatever.


You assume there really was something. My bet is there was just false radar echo, lots of chaos, unexperienced crews, projectiles bursting in the air, smoke from them, moving beams of searchlights making the illusion of movement in the air...

Another such examples? For example Japanese ships at the battle of Commandore islands were convinced they've came under US aircraft attack and begun AAA fire into the clouds... Yet there were no aircrafts, neither US or Japanese.



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 11:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by tuccy
You assume there really was something. My bet is there was just false radar echo, lots of chaos, unexperienced crews, projectiles bursting in the air, smoke from them, moving beams of searchlights making the illusion of movement in the air...

Another such examples? For example Japanese ships at the battle of Commandore islands were convinced they've came under US aircraft attack and begun AAA fire into the clouds... Yet there were no aircrafts, neither US or Japanese.


Wasn't the difference here, that they actually SAW what was in the sky?



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 11:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Masisoar
Wasn't the difference here, that they actually SAW what was in the sky?


And what did they SAW? Was it real object? Wasn't it just puff of smoke from the AA shells, lit by searchlights? Green troops tended to see their targets everywhere. Green escort ships reorted scores of sub periscopes, green infantrymen were firing at everything hat made sounds in the darkness, green AAA crews were firing at anything. Even experienced AAA units had moments when they were firing at "100% sure enemy" at times the enemy wasn't there.



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 11:44 AM
link   
Well I can't convince anyone considering I wasn't there, but take this for what you will:

A look at the photo
Battle of LA



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by Masisoar
Well I can't convince anyone considering I wasn't there, but take this for what you will:

A look at the photo
Battle of LA


The "clearly saucer-shaped object" doesn't seem too clearly saucer-shaped to me. rather it is looking like a cloud (either natural or from the exploding AAA shells). Highlighted by several searchlights from several sides. Alerady saw better UFO's caused by lights on clouds/smoke with my own eyes.



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 12:00 PM
link   
If it was a cloud of concentrated AA shells, consider how many are surrounding the cloud itself, that's a lot concentrated in one area if it was to be a cloud, wouldn't it be more dispersed?

You have 5 or 6 rounds around "the cloud" but then that makes about 10 or 11, if not more, rounds concentrated in one dense area, I find that sort of hard to believe.




Your guess.. is as good as mine.



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 12:09 PM
link   


moving beams of searchlights making the illusion of movement in the air...


\i think with the above post's of the pics being examined shows the beams of light were not moving.
All pointed at the same area.
I dont see how your theory of "might be something there" holds up, im being lazy but wasnt their a good number of witness's that saw this thing?

surely if there was nothing there then why does some sort of matter appear in the images above.?



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Masisoar
If it was a cloud of concentrated AA shells, consider how many are surrounding the cloud itself, that's a lot concentrated in one area if it was to be a cloud, wouldn't it be more dispersed?

You have 5 or 6 rounds around "the cloud" but then that makes about 10 or 11, if not more, rounds concentrated in one dense area, I find that sort of hard to believe.





They don't have to be concentrated to one spot at one moment, the smoke remains in the air and it tended to be rather dense, just look at the 88 barrages over Germany caught on films.



Your guess.. is as good as mine.


Generally true, both statements are just guesses
Of course I naturally think mine is closer to the truth but then I bet the same on your side



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 12:23 PM
link   
Something that would help us determine this would be the diameter of the search lights used to spot the object, from there we could tell how large the AA shell explosions/smoke trails were to see if they've been up there for a while and if the smoke had a change to spread, causing the "UFO". But as I said, that is still a dense cloud of AA smoke, I've never seen it create something so thick in one area, considering how many are around the "Dense cloud" or object.



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Denied


moving beams of searchlights making the illusion of movement in the air...

surely if there was nothing there then why does some sort of matter appear in the images above.?


Check this page at Skylighters.org about halfway down the page, the picture captioned "Searchlight beams strike the base of the cloud ceiling, creating an effect resembling a flying disc." (taken in LA in the 1940's, by the way).

The site has lots of photographs of what searchlights really look like, unlike the heavily retouched "Battle of LA" artwork. There's also a report on the Battle of LA which is worth reading.



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 12:33 PM
link   
The cloud ceiling from the Battle of LA photo must of been higher because we could see AA shell smoke above the "supposed" object.



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Denied



moving beams of searchlights making the illusion of movement in the air...


\i think with the above post's of the pics being examined shows the beams of light were not moving.

You guess from one still? It is clear that on a single pic you cannot see the movement. However it was usual practise the lights would be moving



All pointed at the same area.
I dont see how your theory of "might be something there" holds up, im being lazy but wasnt their a good number of witness's that saw this thing?


Here's something on the witnesse's account...


Probably much of the confusion came from the fact that anti-aircraft shell bursts, caught by the searchlights, were themselves mistaken for enemy planes. In any case, the next three hours produced some of the most imaginative reporting of the war: “swarms” of planes (or, sometimes, balloons) of all possible sizes, numbering from one to several hundred, traveling at altitudes which ranged from a few thousand feet to more than 20,000 and flying at speeds which were said to have varied from “very slow” to over 200 miles per hour, were observed to parade across the skies.

www.sfmuseum.org...

Note the differences between Navy and Army views on the matter.

Yet more detailed accdount here, just found the article:
www.historynet.com...

Seems there was also some [gasp] meteorological balloon involved. So then there really would be something, but neither UFO or enemy.


surely if there was nothing there then why does some sort of matter appear in the images above.?


AA rounds of that time usually created a compact cloud of dense black smoke. How would a grouping of such clouds look like when lit by the searchlight? I'd bet as a matter.
If teh account given in the second article is correct (I mean the balloon) there is a possibility a matter would be there in the form of a blimp - then I'd stand corrected concerning mater in the picture (but not concerning war chaos and unexperienced crews
)



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 12:42 PM
link   
tuccy,

You forgetting the facts that over a million residents were awakened by the Air Raid and Blackout and thousands and thousands of people all reported the same thing, a large unknown object hanging motionless in the sky over L.A. for nearly an hour that night with AA shells bursting around it.

Over 12,000 Air Raid Marshals reported for duty.

The first Air Raid Alert was around 2:25 am , and the first shots were not fired until 3:16 am when an object was sighted.

Army Western Defense Command spokesmen told reporters that between one and Fifty planes had been sighted.

From the Photographic evidence we have you can clearly see all of Nine searchlights are all focused on one spot in the sky, and that also matches what thousands of Residents claimed they witnessed.

Five residents Died , two a result of shrapnel, three from Heart failure.

The object also moved over the coastal towns of Long beach and Santa Monica, taking 30 minutes to travel the 20 miles between them.

It was a clear night.



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Masisoar
The cloud ceiling from the Battle of LA photo must of been higher because we could see AA shell smoke above the "supposed" object.


According to reports the skies were relaticely clear with small clouds
But most likely I'm standing corrected concerning the fact "something" was up there that night - see above, second link, page 3.



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by lost_shaman
tuccy,

You forgetting the facts that over a million residents were awakened by the Air Raid and Blackout and thousands and thousands of people all reported the same thing, a large unknown object hanging motionless in the sky over L.A. for nearly an hour that night with AA shells bursting around it.

Over 12,000 Air Raid Marshals reported for duty.

The first Air Raid Alert was around 2:25 am , and the first shots were not fired until 3:16 am when an object was sighted.

Similar situation in Berlin during the Peenemünde raid, even interceptors in the air, contrary to L.A. battle, firing into the empty air hours after the eight Mosquitoes makinf a fake raid were gone, some of them even firing at each other, AA-Guns firing at nothing, spotlights concentrating on nothing. So there were similar situations.



Army Western Defense Command spokesmen told reporters that between one and Fifty planes had been sighted.

While Navy claimed no planes on that night , you may choose what you want, also the planes were reported at a wide range of altitudes and speeds




From the Photographic evidence we have you can clearly see all of Nine searchlights are all focused on one spot in the sky, and that also matches what thousands of Residents claimed they witnessed.

0 to swarms of planes, in all levels, at all speeds, blimps... But yes, see the above article, seems I have to stand corrected and there really was something - a meteorological blimp (rather than metheororlogical, it was a blimp used to provide just wind speed and direction at altitude for the AAA).

Btw just another example, our jet interceptors using radar directing to target had problems with meteo and other balloons drifting here from the West Germany during the beginning of the Cold War. According to pilots it was very tricky to intercept balloon and its movements reports from ground observers were usually wrong.



Five residents Died , two a result of shrapnel, three from Heart failure.


Sorry to nitpick but this is just proof the AA-Guns were firing



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 02:29 PM
link   
The object in the clouds in the Battle of LA photo graphs was NOT searchlight reflection off the clouds. Oh, for christ sake, cant the debunkers ever come up with something original as well as that which fits the data at hand?



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
The object in the clouds in the Battle of LA photo graphs was NOT searchlight reflection off the clouds. Oh, for christ sake, cant the debunkers ever come up with something original as well as that which fits the data at hand?


Had you read some of the previous posts you'd find out I'm accepting my mistake and even posting article explaining that there was really something and what that something was



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by tuccy


Similar situation in Berlin during the Peenemünde raid, even interceptors in the air, contrary to L.A. battle, firing into the empty air hours after the eight Mosquitoes makinf a fake raid were gone, some of them even firing at each other, AA-Guns firing at nothing, spotlights concentrating on nothing. So there were similar situations.


We also bombed Germany relentlessly day and night often with multiple waves one after another.



Originally posted by tuccy
While Navy claimed no planes on that night , you may choose what you want, also the planes were reported at a wide range of altitudes and speeds


And the Navy has never admitted knowledge of UFOs or ever released any declassified documents relating to them. This is no different.


Originally posted by tuccy
0 to swarms of planes, in all levels, at all speeds, blimps... But yes, see the above article, seems I have to stand corrected and there really was something - a meteorological blimp (rather than metheororlogical, it was a blimp used to provide just wind speed and direction at altitude for the AAA).


So now the "Magic Weather Balloons" are shrapnel proof too?

What gets me is that no one describes Balloons with little candle lamps , they describe a large stationary object over L.A.



Originally posted by tuccy

Btw just another example, our jet interceptors using radar directing to target had problems with meteo and other balloons drifting here from the West Germany during the beginning of the Cold War. According to pilots it was very tricky to intercept balloon and its movements reports from ground observers were usually wrong.



I know those darn Weather Balloons just plague us don't they?



[edit on 6-6-2006 by lost_shaman]



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by tuccy


Had you read some of the previous posts you'd find out I'm accepting my mistake and even posting article explaining that there was really something and what that something was


I wasn't directing it at you. Or you specifically.

There were plenty of others on here bandying about other theories.



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join