Battle of LA - Army Fires on UFO in 1942

The Anti-Aircraft batteries in Culver City and Baldwin Hills reported Direct Hits (Verified by multiple spotters) and the only thing they brought down was torrents of Shrapnel ! Crazed motorists followed the Thing from Larchmont Village (HancockPark/Hollywood) to Hughes Airfield (Playa Del Rey/Culver City) and lost sight of it as it gained altitude...

Originally posted by John Nada

Originally posted by Gazrok
What? This is in genuine newspapers (able to be looked up in any library) and those reports are FIRST HAND accounts. Also, there is an official (FOIA) memo from Marshal to the president trying to explain the incident, etc. (all of which was provided in this thread) There is REAL, CONCRETE evidence here, not heresay, or "odd pieces of information".

Nah that's not what I meant, what I mean is there really isn't enough here to rule out many other variables that took place. Hell, the craft could've crashed out of sight and recovered but the military kept it quiet as not to avoid a panic. I've just thrown that one out there but there's just so many things, but this was so long ago and very little to go on that nothing can really be ruled out in my opinion.

You sir will need to go back to your old physics books
No flames, no debris...no change in speed while getting shot at.
What you are saying is not holding.

Originally posted by something smells
Thing that gets me is that these days UFOs are mostly reported in the sky's as fast moving, high maneuverability get outta here machines. My big concern is why is this vehicle advanced enough to stop AA rounds etc only traveling at something like 25 miles per hour? Also if it did cause such a big hoo haa then why was it merely left to drift out of sight, with no further tracing or pursuit?

There seems to be some witnesses independently sighting something "orange" "beautiful" whatever. But they are unnamed or untraceable...due to the time elapsed perhaps? That people thought that they had seen something is not the same as there actually being something.

It is conceivable false radar echos and hysteria played a part. The much mentioned 1470 rounds of AAA in what 49 minutes not a lot really. Depends on the number of guns of course. But really what are the estimates back then up to 5000 rounds to down one aircraft? Look at the footage from any US Naval engagements against the Imperial Japanese Carrier born aircraft. That sky looks totally and completely covered in fragments. It does not seem possible that an aircraft could get through...but they did.

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.
I think that the type of ammo of the day seems to indicate that they may have hit something. But I can not believe an advanced technology craft would slowly move away from attack. I would say "Haul ass!" would have been the order of the day, even if the attackers puny weapons were of no affect.

The photo is inconclusive too. We have seen here a few photoshop jobs, with varying results. I looked myself with CS2 but what can you do with a scan of a piccy that old? You could make it look like whatever you subjectively want it to look like. I think part of the area defined as the object is actually proximity explosions. What ever is in the middle of all that smoke and metal you can not really make out because the area is saturated.

Has anyone mapped the course of the alleged object? Was it mostly over land?

Interesting case but not totally proved for me.

I wish the investigation well...

Just my 2 cents

Today, the military are running scalar weapons/accelerated particle beam weapons that can reach near speed of light. If i was to show myself today, i would do it just briefly enough so the satellite targeting system doesn't have time to catch me.

This wasn't the case in 1942, they could have just said. Let's make a show, Here we are, look at us

A semi-dematerialised ship wouldn't be affected by those conventional shells.

[edit on 26-1-2007 by tock]


[edit on 26-1-2007 by tock]

Originally posted by TruthCanHurt
Here is an image enhanced version of the photo that was taken during the "battle".

The saucer shape is clearly visible.




Can anyone with experience with such things estimate the size of the craft?

I'm constantly amazed that this encounter in 1942 isn't more visible than it is presently. Here's another image that's been enhanced to give you a better feel for what they were up against. Click on this image.

i211.photobucket.com...
i211.photobucket.com...

[edit on 31-5-2007 by carnival_of_souls2047]

WOW! the BATTLE OF LA only found out about a while back found actual film clip at tinyul.com... surely this must put it ahead of Roswell for evidence, and if not...... why?

tinurl.com...

Originally posted by hawkeyed
WOW! the BATTLE OF LA only found out about a while back found actual film clip at tinyul.com... surely this must put it ahead of Roswell for evidence, and if not...... why?

Well as a scientist would say there is no solid concrete evidence to suggest ET races are visiting this planet. Until they get their hands on something truly ET and study it, no videos, pictures, ex military witnesses will be taken seriously by them. I aggree though I think the battle of LA is a much more important event in ufology than Roswell. Roswell to me is a little fishy as people seem to be cashing in on the story more than anything else.

This has always been one of my favorite UFO stories. I think part of the reason this did not get more attention is the fact of there being something in our airspace that we couldn't get rid of. Why would they want to scare the public even more than they already were with the recent attack on pearl harbor?

Thought it might interesting for some, to listen to the radio broadcasting then of this event.
I don’t know [I didn’t checked] if it was posted before but better one time to many then never al all.

www.ufomystic.com...

Original source;Andrew Johnson www.checktheevidence.co.uk...


[edit on 28/2/08 by spacevisitor]

Will definitely have to check this out...

Thanks!

Has there been any new information about this incident? There is a you tube video that shows what looks like film of the incident. Is it legitimate?

Originally posted by Dronetek
Has there been any new information about this incident? There is a you tube video that shows what looks like film of the incident. Is it legitimate?

NO!

Originally posted by Frank Warren

Originally posted by Dronetek
Has there been any new information about this incident? There is a you tube video that shows what looks like film of the incident. Is it legitimate?

NO!

Any more clarification than that?

Good Day Dronetek

Originally posted by Dronetek

Originally posted by Frank Warren

Originally posted by Dronetek
Has there been any new information about this incident? There is a you tube video that shows what looks like film of the incident. Is it legitimate?

NO!

Any more clarification than that?

There is no "moving" film of the BOLA event; Escamilla just got "creative" with "his" film; additionally, the shot of the light's "crossing each other" is just that; it gives the impression of an object caught in the beams, but it is only that . . . an impression, an optical illusion. This does not negate what occurred that night however, or take away from the "authentic" photo that was taken and that dawned the cover of the LA Times The next day.

Cheers,
Frank

Published civilian eyewitness reports of the incident include:

# Two waves of bombers with a total of two hundred planes dropping bombs
# One wave of bombers
# American planes
# No planes
# Plane(s) were shot down
# A giant butterfly which they thought might have been a blimp

Let me guess which single description you want to accept to the exclusion of the others.


There is no indication any American planes were launched. Which, under the circumstances is reasonable. Here is a quote from one of the pilots of the 94th Fighter Squadron. Maj.Jack M. Ilfrey, an Ace.

We pilots prayed to the Good Lord above that we wouldn't be sent up in that barrage, enemy or not. Most everyone saw, or imagined something - Jap Zero's - P43's, Jap Betty Bombers. We were not sent up.

But by the time the sun rose and the smoke cleared, it was noted that nary an enemy bomb had actually fallen upon the balmy shores of Southern California. Thus the whole shooting match was soon dismissed as a grandiose false alarm.

Source


Oh, and that radar contact that sort of started the whole thing? On February 23 a Japanese submarine, the I-17, surfaced and attempted to shell the fuel storage tanks near Santa Barbara. Funny thing about I-17, it was a type B1
See that hump in front of the conning tower? That's a hanger for a catapult launched seaplane. I wonder if that unidentified blip could have been that aircraft. Nah, I guess not.

[edit on 6-11-2008 by Phage]

[edit on 6-11-2008 by Phage]

reply to post by Phage


What were they all shining the spotlights on then if there was nothing there?

Originally posted by Deaf Alien
reply to post by Phage

 

What were they all shining the spotlights on then if there was nothing there?

Some of the rounds were proximity fused and exploded in the sky. There might have been a small cloud or something the guys started firing at in the first place, then they kept firing at the spotlit flak cloud. Not surprisingly, there was no damage on "direct hits." Pretty hard to damage a cloud.

I'm still thinking it was some kind of wayward patrol squadron that started the whole shooting match and luckily managed to high-tail it down to one of the bases in Orange County without getting blasted out of the sky.

"Wild Bill" Kelso, played by John Belushi in the movie "1941."

Good Day NoHup,

Originally posted by Nohup

Originally posted by Deaf Alien
reply to post by Phage

 

What were they all shining the spotlights on then if there was nothing there?

Some of the rounds were proximity fused and exploded in the sky. There might have been a small cloud or something the guys started firing at in the first place, then they kept firing at the spotlit flak cloud. Not surprisingly, there was no damage on "direct hits." Pretty hard to damage a cloud.

I'm still thinking it was some kind of wayward patrol squadron that started the whole shooting match and luckily managed to high-tail it down to one of the bases in Orange County without getting blasted out of the sky.

"Wild Bill" Kelso, played by John Belushi in the movie "1941."

"Your cloud" as you call it returned a "hard target" on radar, was intelligently controlled, (at one point actually reversed course) elliptical in shape, silver in color, impervious to 3" AA rounds and over 800' wide.

I don't know what's more far fetched, a "super balloon" that can withstand 3" anti-aircraft rounds for hours, or a "magic cloud!"

In regards to a "patrol," given what happened two months prior at Pearl, our planes were certainly sent up to defend the skies, and it would have been dereliction of duty had that not been the case.

See Mystery Object Called Inter-Planetary Craft

Cheers,
Frank

Originally posted by Frank Warren
"Your cloud" as you call it returned a "hard target" on radar, was intelligently controlled, (at one point actually reversed course) elliptical in shape, silver in color, impervious to 3" AA rounds and over 800' wide.

The radar contact that had been tracked earlier was lost offshore, before the firing started. There is no indication of any radar contact after the target disappeared. As has been noted, there is a possibility the radar contact could have been a reconnaissance aircraft launched from the Japanese submarine which was known to be in the vicinity.

What evidence is there of the "object" being intelligently controlled?

Good Day Phage,

Originally posted by Phage

Originally posted by Frank Warren
"Your cloud" as you call it returned a "hard target" on radar, was intelligently controlled, (at one point actually reversed course) elliptical in shape, silver in color, impervious to 3" AA rounds and over 800' wide.

The radar contact that had been tracked earlier was lost offshore, before the firing started. There is no indication of any radar contact after the target disappeared. As has been noted, there is a possibility the radar contact could have been a reconnaissance aircraft launched from the Japanese submarine which was known to be in the vicinity.

What evidence is there of the "object" being intelligently controlled?

I don't believe the object was lost to radar. Moreover, the I-17 although it was an aircraft carrier submarine for the "Glen" it wasn't carrying any aircraft. Additionally, the "Glen" or for that matter "any plane" of that era (and probably today) couldn't fly as slow as the object, much less hover . . . not to mention the ability to survive a barrage of 3" AA rounds.

The evidence for "intelligence control" is supported by the "flight path" of the object as well as it changes is altitudes; at one point it stopped and reversed directions.

Cheers,
Frank