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: 11
15
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 03:10 PM
link   

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

The Japanese also attacked USA and just before the "night battle" a Japanese sub was shelling a bit area near L.A. Plus German AAD in 1943 was much more proficient than green US AA troops in 1942.



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

So there was conspiracy right back then? May I remind you again the Russian fleet's "battle of Dogger Bank" where everyone involved from the Russian side saw scores of Japanese small crafts and just the single non-navy witness was able to see the reality - ie that there was no enemy?



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

The balloon was quickly ascending to 25k feet, then remained there. As the AAA used both 3" and 37mm guns, it is clear 37mm couldn't have reached the altitude. The 3" is credited with some 30k feet so that it can reach to that altitude, but with rather large scatter.



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

How would a balloon look like when lit by searchlights? Won't it be a large stationary object?




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

[edit on 6-6-2006 by lost_shaman]


After each shotdown the army was able to locate the wreckage, yet there were few occassions the fighters have failed to shoot the balloon down and it sailed across the borders before another fighter could've reached it.
In a bad visibility one of our airline's DC-3 even collided in mid-air with a balloon, with tragic results. So yes, balloons could've been a bloody nuisance evne years later, with better radars, better fighters and all that.




posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 05:25 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.

Well, that's enough for me. Even a photograph taken at the same time and the same place and under the same conditions which shows something that looks like a flying saucer but really isn't isn't enough, nosiree.

Oh, for christ sake, cant the debunkers ever come up with something original as well as that which fits the data at hand?

Hard evidence of possible object: 0%
Hard evidence of possible searchlight reflection: 100%
You know when you've hit a nerve when the loyal opposition starts invoking deities instead of arguing rationally.



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by tuccy

The Japanese also attacked USA and just before the "night battle" a Japanese sub was shelling a bit area near L.A. Plus German AAD in 1943 was much more proficient than green US AA troops in 1942.


You'll notice from that incident that we didn't fire back or send out planes to sink the sub either. Yet , you seem to think we would unload 1430 AA rounds a couple days later on your everyday average weather balloon.


Originally posted by tuccy

So there was conspiracy right back then?


The long Beach Independent stated this after the Air Raid.


www.ufoevidence.org...

"There is a mysterious reticence about the whole affair and it appears some form of censorship is trying to halt discussion of the matter. Although it was red-hot news not one national radio commentator gave it more than passing mention. This is the kind of reticence that is making the American people gravely suspect the motives and the competence of those whom they have charged with the conduct of the war."




Originally posted by tuccy

The balloon was quickly ascending to 25k feet, then remained there. As the AAA used both 3" and 37mm guns, it is clear 37mm couldn't have reached the altitude. The 3" is credited with some 30k feet so that it can reach to that altitude, but with rather large scatter.


Oh, come on now , you don't even know when or where any Balloons were launched and you certainly don't know how fast this balloon rose or to what altitude. Most Balloons slowly rise until they burst, they didn't reach an altitude and remain there as your stating here as fact.




Originally posted by tuccy

How would a balloon look like when lit by searchlights? Won't it be a large stationary object?


No. Unless you consider a 4-5 ft diameter "piebold" neoprene blowing in the wind a "large stationary object".



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 07:58 PM
link   
I've seen video clips somwhere of this incident. I can't find any. Could someone post a link?



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 08:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by rand


Hard evidence of possible object: 0%
Hard evidence of possible searchlight reflection: 100%


Ok, now Im laughing. Your hard evidence is.................... what?


You know when you've hit a nerve when the loyal opposition starts invoking deities instead of arguing rationally.


Its called blasphemy, not evoking. And I blaspheme when rational arguements have been comepletely exhausted and the opposition continues to say, the sky is green.


[edit on 6-6-2006 by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 09:02 PM
link   
I don't think there's any hard evidence in this case. The country was in a state of panic so to say. Someone saw something and they opened fire. I do it all the time.
There is a preponderence of eyewitness testimony and we all know this is circumstantial. The photos are themselves open to interpretation since the originals and the negs are unavailable for independent analysis.
This case sits in my undecided bin since I can't find enough evidence to stear me one way or the other. Notice I didn't use the word proof in there since the only proof is that someone shot at something. And let's all keep in mind that a UFO is just that(say it with me chillun) an object that can't be readily identified that appears to fly.
This incident involved a UFO. I haven't seen anything that would lead me to say it was man made or not. I used to think the shooting at the clouds idea was plausable. I'm not so sure anymore. I lean more towards some earthly phenomena although not necessarily man made.

Oh and may I commend you folk on this fine discussion.



posted on Jun, 6 2006 @ 09:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
Ok, now Im laughing. Your hard evidence is.................... what?

www.abovetopsecret.com...


Its called blasphemy, not evoking. And I blaspheme when rational arguements have been comepletely exhausted and the opposition continues to say, the sky is green.

Actually, I said "invoke", but evoke is fairly close. Since beseeching Christ for a favor isn't technically blasphemy, I suppose your soul is still pure.

The sky does turn green at times (I've seen green skies around Los Angeles and Southern Cal, most memorably during the canyon fires of 1980/1981), so maybe that's not the best metaphor for pointing out the obvious.



posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 02:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by lost_shaman
You'll notice from that incident that we didn't fire back or send out planes to sink the sub either. Yet , you seem to think we would unload 1430 AA rounds a couple days later on your everyday average weather balloon.

It'd be interesting to see whether there were coastal guns with the field of fire to attack the sub or ASW/ASuW strike capable planes at the moment. From what I know there weren't so many planes available and those that were were being concentrated along the East coast because of massive German sub offensive and on forward bases in Pacific to scout for possible Japanese attacks.

Btw


Whenever and wherever searchlights stopped probing and focused on something, orange-colored bursts of exploding anti-aircraft shells quickly filled the sky around it. At least one unit, the 211th Coast Artillery Regiment, admitted that although its members did not see any planes, they shot anyway.




The long Beach Independent stated this after the Air Raid.


www.ufoevidence.org...

"There is a mysterious reticence about the whole affair and it appears some form of censorship is trying to halt discussion of the matter. Although it was red-hot news not one national radio commentator gave it more than passing mention. This is the kind of reticence that is making the American people gravely suspect the motives and the competence of those whom they have charged with the conduct of the war."


Oh, I meant UFO conspiracy, sorry. The article with the balloon ground crew seems to indicate there was a coverup as to not make fools of the AAA firing into empty air. Would be rather embarassing - there are few instances involved officers would happily admit mistake (except the "ghost battle" off Aleutes, commander of the task force claimed that atleast his ships have undergone the most realistic training he could imagine afterwards).




Oh, come on now , you don't even know when or where any Balloons were launched and you certainly don't know how fast this balloon rose or to what altitude.
Most Balloons slowly rise until they burst, they didn't reach an altitude and remain there as your stating here as fact.

Balloons were to be launched by every AAA regiment every 6 hours, at the very moment the "battle" begun two were climbing to the skies according to their ground crews, whose members have seen AA rounds bursting around their balloons and alerted neighbouring AAA units they're firing at the balloons.
Even some of the AA gunners have reported they've fired upon balloon-like object ascending from 9,000 to 25,000 feet and then disappearing. Others have testified by the end the object was so high the AA shells were bursting some 10,000 ft below it.



No. Unless you consider a 4-5 ft diameter "piebold" neoprene blowing in the wind a "large stationary object".


looking up in the skies distorts perspective and objects appear larger, esp. by night. Esp. if they are lit up. And if there is something well visible in hte height, you'd assume it's large as you won't be able to see it otherwise. At least I'd assume so, esp. in the heat of battle.

So, to sum it up:
Civillian witnesses claiming blimps, scores of Japanese aircrafts, some even claimed bombs to be dropped.
Army claimed unidentified number of Japanese aircrafts, however atleast one unit reported firing at nothing, several more reported firing at a balloon-like object. Two meteo balloon ground crews reported their balloons under AAA fire.
Navy claimed no aircrafts in the air even though 3" guns of one DD in the port have added their deal to the inferno.



posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 05:26 AM
link   
lol come on now guys, arguin aint helpin my research



posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 05:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by tuccy

Btw

"
Whenever and wherever searchlights stopped probing and focused on something, orange-colored bursts of exploding anti-aircraft shells quickly filled the sky around it. At least one unit, the 211th Coast Artillery Regiment, admitted that although its members did not see any planes, they shot anyway."



Yes I read that editorial suggestion by Donald J. Young from the September 2003 piece you are quoting from. However , that's all that it is , an Editorial suggestion.



Originally posted by tuccy

Oh, I meant UFO conspiracy, sorry. The article with the balloon ground crew seems to indicate there was a coverup as to not make fools of the AAA firing into empty air. Would be rather embarassing - there are few instances involved officers would happily admit mistake (except the "ghost battle" off Aleutes, commander of the task force claimed that atleast his ships have undergone the most realistic training he could imagine afterwards).


You've just been talking about it on this thread for how long now? This was America's first Nationally publicised "UFO" event in years. Notice that some of the witness' described the object as being like a "Giant Hubcap"? That is five years before the press terms the phase "Flying Saucer" after Ken Arnold's sighting.

Plus you must consider that it would be illegal to just "cover-up" on the fly an embarrassing situation , that isn't how "cover-ups" work. "Covers" and "Cover-ups" originate from the Top down , not the Bottom up.

Then you also must explain why George C. Marshall had to answer to Roosevelt when he demanded to know what exactly happened , that Marshall didn't have a satisfactory answer to give him other than apparently unknown aircraft . Why not just say it was "War Jitters" and a "Weather Balloon" if that's what really happened?





Originally posted by tuccy

looking up in the skies distorts perspective and objects appear larger, esp. by night. Esp. if they are lit up. And if there is something well visible in hte height, you'd assume it's large as you won't be able to see it otherwise. At least I'd assume so, esp. in the heat of battle.


I don't really agree with that , from everything I know these balloons were very hard to see even at relatively low altitudes , that's why they were pigmented and the meteorologists using them had to optically track them with telescopic Theodolites.



Originally posted by tuccy

So, to sum it up:
Civillian witnesses claiming blimps, scores of Japanese aircrafts, some even claimed bombs to be dropped.
Army claimed unidentified number of Japanese aircrafts, however atleast one unit reported firing at nothing, several more reported firing at a balloon-like object. Two meteo balloon ground crews reported their balloons under AAA fire.
Navy claimed no aircrafts in the air even though 3" guns of one DD in the port have added their deal to the inferno.



So your summary doesn't include the RADAR Tracks of incoming Targets from off shore ?

But then again that would undermine your little Balloon hypothesis even more wouldn't it ?



[edit on 7-6-2006 by lost_shaman]



posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 07:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by lost_shaman

So your summary doesn't include the RADAR Tracks of incoming Targets from off shore ?

But then again that would undermine your little Balloon hypothesis even more wouldn't it ?

[edit on 7-6-2006 by lost_shaman]


In that ghost battle of Aleutes, there also were "definite" radar contatcs with "ships" - definite enough for an intensive gunnery exercise. And that was with another year's improvements of radars. Even today false echoes are sometimes occured, if you'd look say at the Battle of Britain they were rather frequent with the radars of that era, be it surface or aerial search radars.



posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 08:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by tuccy

In that ghost battle of Aleutes, there also were "definite" radar contatcs with "ships"


I'm not familiar with that incident , however my first guess would be "Ice Burgs".





Even today false echoes are sometimes occured, if you'd look say at the Battle of Britain they were rather frequent with the radars of that era, be it surface or aerial search radars.


False echos do occur even today ( Ground clutter , temperature inversions ), but so do "unidentified targets" and there is a distinction here.

You are also correct in that the Air Ministry began recording "unknowns" much earlier than the U.S. did , and these were classified Top Secret and called "X" Targets and numbered accordingly with "X" 362 on January 16th 1947 prompting the Air Ministry to begin an intensive effort to once and for all Identify these "unknowns" in an operation called "Operation Charlie" , "X" 362 being nicknamed "Charlie".



posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 10:46 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.

The idea of it moving too slow, is strange, why wouldn't it move slow, it wasn't in danger if it was ET's presumably.

And haven't many UFOs been spotted motionless.



Like all of us I don't know what it was. No one does. We were not there. If we were we may still not know.

I just do not immediately jump on the UFO bandwagon. Perhaps there was a UFO or an UAP...(an Unexplained Aerial Phenomena to you.) There is the possibility that some of these so called UFO sightings are not objects but phenomena. Such an object could take all the firepower you got and still be there. But that is another book. Incidently AAA looks worse than it is. Sure its nasty if it gets you, but remember all that AAA Iraq shot up over Baghdad a few years ago? Looked nice on nightvision didnt it....did not hit much though....It usually kills more of its own civvies than the bombs.........


My observation was basically because it was slow. Yes there have been alleged sightings of UFO that have been slow / motionless. But they are generally observed by a few passive observers. Too many of the UFO cult believe the fantasy that these are aliens investigating our military might. But generally when the military turn up they're off. Sometimes they play a bit of course. But bearing in mind that they seem to go out of their way to not be too visible....I think hanging around L.A. longer than George Michael lurks around a toilet, and being fired upon is a bit strange??

If these are piloted craft are we to assume they are intelligent? If so what the hell did they think was going on? A fireworks party?

I have my own hypothesis as to what I believe is going on...well in some cases but for now it is mine.

In any area of design there are physics / criteria etc that dictate the best design for any creation whether it be evolved or man made. There is a kind of convergence to a form. You want fuel efficient or fast cars...the shape is dictated.

Why then is there such a variance in the design in UFOs. man-made, alien or UAP?
Are the alleged aliens not to keen to have the same model as their neighbor? Perhaps its a fashion thing.."No darling greys don't do discs or orange."?
Maybe each craft is the result of the entire technological output of individual star systems, that's why they are so different...and so few?


I am constantly amused that people cant wait to have first contact with an alien species, when they don't even really know their neighbor. When their only social interaction with other sentient beings is boards like this....sad innit


Dont look to me for answers, I have none. Nor if they are honest does anyone else



posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 11:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by tuccy


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.



Strewth its a wonder they ever hit anything


I suppose that if you had an idea of distance /altitude, speed and size of object you could put up a screen in its path. But what visual accounts exist of anything other than aircraft describe something "unknown". Now whether it actually existed or was merely a figment of imagination and hysteria who knows. Fact is the crucial coordinate information was not there so the better chance of hitting something with a timed / altitude screen was lost.

That left the smaller calibre impact munition.....and bullets
. A line of sight method. Yet again no judgement of size, distance and speed point and shoot....watch the tracer. Well there's a problem. Rather than see the usual visual tracer reports ricochet, disappearing, flames etc...they hurtle towards a bright background...I doubt you could see what you hit..if you hit anything.

No surprise they did not hit anything, even if there was anything to hit....especially considering the crews involved.



posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 11:14 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

Where he gets the saucer shape from I dont know.

To me the enhancement only shows a convergence of AAA in an area bounded by the searchlights. This is moving the proof more towards that they were not shooting at an alien craft or whatever you wish to call a UFO. IMHO.

Maybe people did see something that night? I was not there and don't know. But if they did see something doesn't mean that this photo shows it being shot at.



posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 11:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by rand
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).


Nice find. Excellent.



posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 11:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by rand

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).



I agree Rand a great find.

The problem here is , and people keep forgetting, there is no cloud ceiling on the night in question. And therefore the "illusion" has no relevance to the discussion of what happened on the night of February 24-25 ,1942.







[edit on 7-6-2006 by lost_shaman]



posted on Jun, 7 2006 @ 10:09 PM
link   
So you have 1 massive cloud of concetrated AAA, with like 4 or 5 ones that exist on the outside?

I respect your thoughts but what I'm getting at is with something so trivial as they had back in the day for accuracy, how did they manage to get some a concentrated cloud of it, and also, considering the diameter of the searchlights would help as they can help determine how large that cloud actually it is and how concentrated the AAA are, I've never seen them so concentrated in such a small area. What I'm saying is this:




Would be more acceptable than:



As to a concentration of AAA in such a small area.

Edit: To me, that looks like a very strong solid object.

[edit on 6/7/2006 by Masisoar]



posted on Jun, 8 2006 @ 04:30 AM
link   


I am constantly amused that people cant wait to have first contact with an alien species, when they don't even really know their neighbor. When their only social interaction with other sentient beings is boards like this....sad innit


Well ive held that thought from the start, with all the problems we have already with getting on with each other its no wonder we haven't been approached, we are an unstable bunch.

Im not asking you for answers, not at all, i only listen to your side of the argument, and im still pretty sure there is something solid there.



posted on Jun, 19 2006 @ 11:15 PM
link   
Here is a great link that has several transcribed News articles about the Battle of L.A.

home.planet.nl...



Articles transcribed

February 25, 1942, Glendale News Press, 'Anti-Aircraft Guns Blast at L.A. Mystery Invader'

February 26, 1942, Los Angeles Times, 'Army Says Alarm Real'

February 26, 1942, The New York Times, 'Los Angeles Guns Bark at Air 'Enemy'' (includes a high quality photo, which was included in the original article)

February 26, 1942, The Scotsman, 'False Alarm in Los Angeles'

February 27, 1942, The Scotsman, 'Los Angeles Incident'

February 25, 1942, more recent testimonies about the Battle of Los Angeles




There are also several other Articles including articles about Roswell and other UFO events.


[edit on 20-6-2006 by lost_shaman]



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in

join