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: 3
15
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 27 2005 @ 02:46 PM
link   

Well not really, it was 1942 and other than the odd pieces of information there really isn't much to confirm anything other than a crap photo and a bunch of 2nd hand recollections.


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".




posted on Feb, 27 2005 @ 03:55 PM
link   

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.



posted on Feb, 27 2005 @ 06:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by John Nada
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...
... this was so long ago and very little to go on that nothing can really be ruled out in my opinion.


I get the feeling that if this spaceship landed on your head you would still
be skeptical.



posted on Feb, 27 2005 @ 10:20 PM
link   
LOL^ Thats the funniest thing I've heard all day.

This is the first I have heard of this and it quite a lot to take in.
I just kick myself that it happened in the 40s and not now. Could you imagine what it would be like. All the video cameras in LA would be on it. The weapons the US have now, all firing at the target would be extreme.

I also believe the people back then would have passed it off to whatever the Goverment said. As Gaz said its before the UFO craze. This case needs more sources of imput, the internet only has so much. Maybe someone can get an eyewitness account first hand from someone who was there? Maybe even someone in the service.

Its going to be fun and informing to find out what went on, if we can.



posted on Feb, 28 2005 @ 01:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by TruthCanHurt
I get the feeling that if this spaceship landed on your head you would still
be skeptical.


Not at all.


There's nothing I'd love more in fact ( well...maybe not the falling on the head part
) than to prove that ET is visiting us. It's best to always rule out every possible scenario before committing to the fantastic.



posted on Feb, 28 2005 @ 01:38 AM
link   
Does anyone have Photoshop or some picture editing program that could reveal to us a negative image. I mean the white spotlights converging on this don't really show me anything (or is it just me?). It makes sense doesn't it if we could see the negative that we might be able to see at least a faint shape or what this object might be?



posted on Feb, 28 2005 @ 01:47 AM
link   
Someones played around with it a bit in this thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on Feb, 28 2005 @ 01:57 AM
link   
Without wanting to come across as too lazy (which let's face it, I am) do any of the links name the photographer that took the picture?

Plus, I really can't believe there weren't more pictures, it is LA after all, it's not like they had a shortage of cameras even then...

[edit on 28-2-2005 by John Nada]



posted on Feb, 28 2005 @ 07:37 AM
link   
If you'd really like, I could dig and list the other local CA papers carrying the story, but then I've already shown the OFFICIAL (i.e. FOIA released) memo from Marshall to the president, so it seems rather unnecessary...
The incident certainly happened...and even the military seems unable to explain it away credibly....


Maybe someone can get an eyewitness account first hand from someone who was there? Maybe even someone in the service.


Being that this was 63 years ago, I'm not sure how much stock someone would put in the testimony of someone who is over 80 (which even some of the youngest GIs at the time would be right now)... There are plenty of first hand accounts in the papers (and on both the 25th and 26th I might add, so two days of front page coverage).



posted on Feb, 28 2005 @ 07:41 AM
link   
I had a quick glance through a couple of the links and couldn't see anything about the photographer, although I could've missed it. Is there any mention of the photographer in anything found so far?



posted on Feb, 28 2005 @ 08:11 AM
link   
No, but I've sent an inquiry to the LA Times Archives office. Many such photographers are not credited on the pages, but hopefully they can give me a name for this one, from their records.



posted on Feb, 28 2005 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
No, but I've sent an inquiry to the LA Times Archives office. Many such photographers are not credited on the pages, but hopefully they can give me a name for this one, from their records.


Good stuff, hopefully that can be helpful.



posted on Feb, 28 2005 @ 12:12 PM
link   
I'll let you know when (if?) I hear anything back...
In the meantime, I'll try some other channels of research to see if I can get a name....



posted on Feb, 28 2005 @ 01:01 PM
link   
Im suprised the military fired at the object....not very smart, they are lucky it didn't fire back and destroy them all.....this thing took 1,400+ rounds of anti aircraft fire and was left unscathed, thats scary....



posted on Feb, 28 2005 @ 01:11 PM
link   
Well, just a couple days prior, a Japanese sub surfaced and shelled an oil refinery. It did little damage, but one must remember the time frame here. We had just been attacked at Pearl Harbor in December, and this was the following February.

Confidence was pretty high it was of Japanese origin....

EDIT: forgive my numbers of rounds in some of these posts...damn minor typist's dislexia, hehe...



posted on Mar, 1 2005 @ 02:59 AM
link   


Being that this was 63 years ago, I'm not sure how much stock someone would put in the testimony of someone who is over 80 (which even some of the youngest GIs at the time would be right now)... There are plenty of first hand accounts in the papers (and on both the 25th and 26th I might add, so two days of front page coverage).


True. That does suck.
I wonder what the military would pass this off as now? If only there was a way to get this back into the media, so the military would have to make a statement. I'm sure they could de-classify some info for us about this, if they have anything.



posted on Mar, 1 2005 @ 06:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Die Trying
True. That does suck.
I wonder what the military would pass this off as now? If only there was a way to get this back into the media, so the military would have to make a statement. I'm sure they could de-classify some info for us about this, if they have anything.


Well...we do have a news source right here.

We could "Re-open" the case.


[edit on 1-3-2005 by John Nada]



posted on Mar, 1 2005 @ 07:10 AM
link   
I'm sure any new investigations would simply prompt the military to stand by the "war jitters" explanation....(I know that's what I would do in their circumstances).

If some really credible witnesses could be located as still living (such as ex-military, ex-police, ex-press, etc.) that saw it first hand, then THAT would certainly be one way to go....

Short of tracking down the names given in the paper, their relatives, and then possibly going to the area to interview the older folks to see who was there and who remembers though....not too likely for any of us...at least not with my limited funds, hehe....



posted on Mar, 1 2005 @ 07:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
Short of tracking down the names given in the paper, their relatives, and then possibly going to the area to interview the older folks to see who was there and who remembers though....not too likely for any of us...at least not with my limited funds, hehe....


I'm a long, long way away from LA otherwise I would actually do that.



posted on Mar, 1 2005 @ 07:31 AM
link   

I'm a long, long way away from LA otherwise I would actually do that.


Same here (FL)
But any CA ATS member can be my guest at it!

Names are mentioned in the article, and even a cursory look at a phone book may turn up something. (I just don't have the local area knowledge to weed out addresses to find the most likely, etc.)




top topics



 
15
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join