Battle of LA - Army Fires on UFO in 1942

Originally posted by Frank Warren

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

Maybe I wasn't clear on what I was asking for. What is the evidence of the flight path?

You seem to be overly selective about the eyewitness reports you use in your analysis, accepting those that report a single large object and rejecting those of hundreds of aircraft, of balloons, of no aircraft, of no object. You seem to be relying more on the 60 year old memories of the residents who were impressionable children at the time than the eyewitness reports published in the days after the incident. You seem to reject the report of a WWII fighter ace (a member of the 94th fighter squadron which was put on alert that morning) who witnessed the incident and who says that no interceptors were launched.

Do you have evidence that radar contact was maintained after the target moved onshore? It seems that if that were the case the Army would not conceal it but would have used it to bolster their case that there were unidentified airplanes present, that it wasn't a false alarm. I would also be interested in more information about the I-17 not carrying a seaplane while patrolling the West Coast.

[edit on 15-11-2008 by Phage]

Phage,

Originally posted by Phage

Originally posted by Frank Warren

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

Maybe I wasn't clear on what I was asking for. What is the evidence of the flight path?

Eyewitness accounts, numerous newspaper reports, and declassified documents to name a few . . ..

You seem to be overly selective about the eyewitness reports you use in your analysis, accepting those that report a single large object and rejecting those of hundreds of aircraft, of balloons, of no aircraft, of no object. You seem to be relying more on the 60 year old memories of the residents who were impressionable children at the time than the eyewitness reports published in the days after the incident. You seem to reject the report of a WWII fighter ace (a member of the 94th fighter squadron which was put on alert that morning) who witnessed the incident and who says that no interceptors were launched.

With the exception of the fighter Ace story, if you were to come to a conclusion based on what you think things "seem like," or more specifically your interpretation of "what I or my actions "seem" like, I would venture to say with great enthusiasm, that you would be in error.

Do you have evidence that radar contact was maintained after the target moved onshore?

The short answer would be "yes."

It seems that if that were the case the Army would not conceal it but would have used it to bolster their case that there were unidentified airplanes present, that it wasn't a false alarm.

Understand that the "First War Powers Act" was in play, as well as the "The Office of Censorship"; although the law, and the office were in it's infancy, and no doubt there would be mistakes, publicizing anything about "unidentified planes," i.e., possibly the enemy was only "not prudent," but technically was against the law.

All that said, I would argue that "the motives of the Army, and or any other military faction would "not be clear," particularly through the lens of the media.

I would also be interested in more information about the I-17 not carrying a seaplane while patrolling the West Coast.
[edit on 15-11-2008 by Phage]

Please understand that I have been researching BOLA for a very long time (along with many other cases), I've done and continue to do my homework; however, one of my motto's is "to do your own research." I have come to live by this dogma, because I have learned that "there is always more." I've learned not to make assumptions based on someone's work, or to accept the status quo (on either side of the UFO debate).

Accordingly, I can state emphatically that there is a great deal of information "out there, "regarding BOLA . . . much more then people realize; one only needs to "get busy" and acquire it . . . or not!

In any event, I think you'd find I-Boat Captain, by Zenji Orita an interesting read.

Cheers,
Frank

reply to post by Frank Warren


Frank,
Thank you for indulging me. Unfortunately I have neither the time nor resources to devote to the first hand research that you are capable of. Reading I can do, and will try to find the book you recommend.

I did find this though (as I am sure you have). It's from the website of the Forth Antiaircraft Command.

Searchlight beams strike the base of the cloud ceiling, creating an effect resembling a flying disc.

Source

[edit on 16-11-2008 by Phage]

Mornin' Phage,

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Frank Warren

 

Frank,
Thank you for indulging me. Unfortunately I have neither the time nor resources to devote to the first hand research that you are capable of. Reading I can do, and will try to find the book you recommend.

Your welcome; unfortunate that you don't have the time to spare, I appreciate your logic.

I did find this though (as I am sure you have). It's from the website of the Forth Antiaircraft Command.

Searchlight beams strike the base of the cloud ceiling, creating an effect resembling a flying disc.

Source

[edit on 16-11-2008 by Phage]

Yes, I am familiar with that image and many more. In fact, one of the images on the "Escamilla video" is of beams that intersect together, giving the impression that there is an "object" there (an illusion).

Separately, re the book, you'll find an interesting anecdote that indicates why the commander of the I-17 chose to bomb Goleta.

Finally, our tête-à-tête has forced me to pull a few files, and I stand corrected Kozu Nishino's I-Boat (I-17) did in fact have (1) Yokoska E-14-Y1 on board; however, that's where it stayed; furthermore, the sub left the area after the bombing on Goleta (the night before).

In answer to you're anticipated question(s), the latter is based on interviews with the men on the I-17.

Cheers,
Frank

Originally posted by Frank Warren

Separately, re the book, you'll find an interesting anecdote that indicates why the commander of the I-17 chose to bomb Goleta.

Finally, our tête-à-tête has forced me to pull a few files, and I stand corrected Kozu Nishino's I-Boat (I-17) did in fact have (1) Yokoska E-14-Y1 on board; however, that's where it stayed; furthermore, the sub left the area after the bombing on Goleta (the night before).

In answer to you're anticipated question(s), the latter is based on interviews with the men on the I-17.

Cheers,
Frank

I assume you're referring to the alleged incident when Kozo Nishino (as the commander of an oil tanker in the 30's) had a close encounter with a cactus while taking on a load at Ellwood.


Here's anecdote about an encounter on the beach the morning after the shelling. It may indicate that the I-17 was not in a hurry to leave the area.

Ueda adds, “One of my workers, Hiro, was born in Japan. He spoke with the most with the sailors. Two of the boys were from Hokkaido. They had come all the way across the Pacific in that submarine. In all of my astonishment, I started thinking—and I could see my wife, who was born here like me, felt the same way—here we are trying to explain to authorities that we are loyal Americans, with no political connection to Japan, and suddenly here I am talking to the Japanese military!
“I politely asked them to go. And they obliged. I put a finger to my mouth, `Hush, hush.’ One of my colleagues brought them strawberries, which they took on board the boat, although I strictly forbade them from taking any pictures. Can you imagine? We were fortunate the light was bad because one of them had a camera . . . The whole encounter lasted about five minutes, really. A long five minutes!” Ueda concludes wryly.
The sailors headed back to their vessel. The Ueda family, workers and dogs watched as the ship submersed itself and disappeared.

Source





[edit on 16-11-2008 by Phage]

Phage,

Originally posted by Phage

Originally posted by Frank Warren

Separately, re the book, you'll find an interesting anecdote that indicates why the commander of the I-17 chose to bomb Goleta.

Finally, our tête-à-tête has forced me to pull a few files, and I stand corrected Kozu Nishino's I-Boat (I-17) did in fact have (1) Yokoska E-14-Y1 on board; however, that's where it stayed; furthermore, the sub left the area after the bombing on Goleta (the night before).

In answer to you're anticipated question(s), the latter is based on interviews with the men on the I-17.

Cheers,
Frank

I assume you're referring to the alleged incident when Kozo Nishino (as the commander of an oil tanker in the 30's) had a close encounter with a cactus while taking on a load at Ellwood.

Yes.

Here's anecdote about an encounter on the beach the morning after the shelling. It may indicate that the I-17 was not in a hurry to leave the area.

Ueda adds, “One of my workers, Hiro, was born in Japan. He spoke with the most with the sailors. Two of the boys were from Hokkaido. They had come all the way across the Pacific in that submarine. In all of my astonishment, I started thinking—and I could see my wife, who was born here like me, felt the same way—here we are trying to explain to authorities that we are loyal Americans, with no political connection to Japan, and suddenly here I am talking to the Japanese military!
“I politely asked them to go. And they obliged. I put a finger to my mouth, `Hush, hush.’ One of my colleagues brought them strawberries, which they took on board the boat, although I strictly forbade them from taking any pictures. Can you imagine? We were fortunate the light was bad because one of them had a camera . . . The whole encounter lasted about five minutes, really. A long five minutes!” Ueda concludes wryly.
The sailors headed back to their vessel. The Ueda family, workers and dogs watched as the ship submersed itself and disappeared.

Source
[edit on 16-11-2008 by Phage]

If you read a little further you'll see that it was apparently "the day of the shelling" as the author writes:

"The next morning [emphasis added] papers were full of the news about the shelling at Ellwood."

Reasonable to assume that "if" there was in fact a landing as Graham suggests, then it took place "before" the shelling.

Cheers,
Frank

reply to post by Frank Warren


Earlier in the piece it is clear that Ueda saw the boat land before dawn on the day after the shelling.

The apparent ambiguity can be resolved by noting that morning can be defined as the time after sunrise. Since the meeting was before dawn, "the next morning papers" is probably referring to the papers on sale the morning after the shelling and the before dawn meeting.

[edit on 16-11-2008 by Phage]

Phage,

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Frank Warren

 

Earlier in the piece it is clear that Ueda saw the boat land before dawn on the day after the shelling.

The apparent ambiguity can be resolved by noting that morning can be defined as the time after sunrise. Since the meeting was before dawn, "the next morning papers" is probably referring to the papers on sale the morning after the shelling and the before dawn meeting.

[edit on 16-11-2008 by Phage]

The bombing took place on the evening of the 23rd, the story broke the next morning (Tuesday) the 24th. I'm not buying the notion that the sub stuck around "after" the attack. Doesn't make any sense for one, and given the extensive search that was going on for it . . . I believe it would have been spotted; then there's the declarations of the personnel of the sub itself etc.,etc.

In any event, the sub and the plane it carried are irrelevant for "many" reasons previously stated.

Interesting story nonetheless . . .

Cheers,
Frank

I wanted to add to the discussion more about the spotlights as I think the photographic evidence in this incident if very important. The convergence of spotlights can create the illusion of a solid object, because the point where the lights converge will appear to be very bright, as if the lights have struck an object and are illuminating it. The more salient point, however, and one that hasn't been addressed yet, is this: Unless the lights do in fact strike a solid object, the beams will continue traveling, albeit at refracted angles. This can be seen in the photo below:





That the lights in the LA Times photo do not continue at refracted angles is in my opinion strong evidence that the lights were illuminating a solid object. Compare the BOLA photo to the above photo of beams of lights converging and then continuing on.

reply to post by Anonymous ATS

In the LA Times photo some of the beams are wider than the supposed object but no portion of the beams project beyond it. This leads me to believe that the beams are converging on a cloud (be it a normal cloud or a cloud of smoke). The area of the cloud on which the beams converge is lit very brightly, creating the illusion of a solid object. Similar to this photo:

reply to post by Phage


Since there are anti-aircraft (AA) bursts in the background, and since the beams appear to be be pretty strong when they reach the object (that is they do not appear to be fading), I'd say that it has to be one of three things: It's either a very dense cloud that happened to be floating along on a night where the ceiling appears to be high (based upon AA shell bursts in the background being quite visible); or it's an unusually large collection of AA smoke, which I think is unlikely because it would mean that a lot of shells had to burst in very close proximity to one another; or we can use Occam's Razor and go with the simplest and most likely explanation: It is a solid object.

Some of the beams are clearly being projected from spotlights nearer to the object than others, and so the light striking the object from those spotlights hasn't traveled as far and is stronger. And yet none of the light continues past the object. This in a nutshell is why I believe the object is solid. What would be interesting would be to find out how thick a cloud or burst of AA shells would have to be to stop such a powerful light in its tracks - so to speak. With no less than five and maybe upwards of seven independent beams of light hitting the object, I would think at least one would continue through it if it were not solid.

Mornin' Phage, Nexus-6,

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Anonymous ATS

 

In the LA Times photo some of the beams are wider than the supposed object but no portion of the beams project beyond it. This leads me to believe that the beams are converging on a cloud (be it a normal cloud or a cloud of smoke). The area of the cloud on which the beams converge is lit very brightly, creating the illusion of a solid object. Similar to this photo:

Phage the infamous photo has been analyzed by myself and others (Maccabee etc.) and there is no doubt that there is a "solid, elliptical shaped" object being fired upon. Moreover, with your emphasis on the "photograph alone," you're negating the other evidence, i.e., the object being detected by radar off the coast, eyewitness accounts, flight path and lengthy time of AA fire on the object.

Cheers,
Frank

[edit on 20-12-2008 by Frank Warren]

Very interesting article, as much as I would like to believe the speculation direction of the news article having the general public believe the military engaged unidentified objects over the state of California during the early hours. I believe, the more substantial answer would be military operations conducted by enemies of the US during wartime. I truly do believe that the military did engage some sort of object over the skies of Santa Monica. But having the object be labeled extraterrestrial is highly unlikely.

It could be argued several different ways but common knowledge and common sense would guide us to different conclusions. Growing up and understanding the unidentified flying object fascination leads me farther from believing in sightings or engagements. The truth of the matter , our enemies, very capable of constructing top-secret aircraft and producing high level operations against America more than likely a responsible for this encounter. The reading of de-classified military operations carried out during the 1940s, gives validity to such possibilities.

The use of experimental craft is nothing new during wartime. I certainly do not put it past the governments of the world during anytime time period to construct crafts that would be considered UFO in nature for reconnaissance or to incite panic against enemies.
On the other hand, let's assume this sighting was extraterrestrial then I would have to ask myself why, if I was the extraterrestrial fly my craft, low enough for anti- aircraft to shoot at me. You would think having the intellectual know-how to construct futuristic craft. I would also be able to detect weapons or danger towards myself.

Originally posted by Meteor_of_War
This is an amazing story and i dont understand why it never got more attention, i believe it should have gotten as much attention as Roswell. Maybe because of when it happened? (at night, during the start of WWII when air attacks from Japan on the west coast of the U.S. were anticipated). It was probably easy enough to explain away to the people of the 1940's.

And damn, if you look close enough you can really make out the object that the spot lights are targetted on as saucer shaped.

Why would the U.S. Military want attention on a craft that they failed to shoot down despite shooting over 1500 rounds of 12 pound AAA shells?

too bad it wasnt publicized much... we could have had alot more belivers

For those late to the party there is an excellent thread here which analyses as much of the details of this story as possible and goes forward to a re-enactment of the evening in question.

Certainly a worthy story.

-m0r

EDIT: Dangnammit url links here

[edit on 21/1/2010 by m0r1arty]

THis thread is dead I know ...

But has not gotten the attention it deserves!

This is one of the biggest cases ever known to man and yet it has been swept under the rug like so many other stories...

Damn shame if you ask me...

I take it you all know that the " saucer shape " is an artifact caused by the converging searchlight beams? I thought I should point that out as I've seen a few posts in thread with people stating that the LA pic is the most clear pic of a UFO ever.....It's a trick of the light and has been proven, even recently on television.

At the other thread
www.abovetopsecret.com...
I posted this link for discussion:
www.notaghost.com...
It discusses the retouching of the original photo.

I don't see any reason to not believe these were aliens, because I doubt that Germans had the technology in 1942 to fly in a radioactive type of craft that had a pure force field around it. It may have not been exactly radionactive but I say that because the color of the craft was orange. Foo Fighters haven't even come out yet right? This is a case of it being so long in the past, people just can't get grasp the concept. This large orange craft over a 100 ft. wide came down to earth around San Clemente, and slowy flew up the coast to LA so they were more than ready for it by that time. Does anyone know how the craft departed? It is typical of a UFO to disappear like a light was turned off.