It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable 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: 6
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in


posted on Mar, 15 2005 @ 09:10 PM
I just realized that "FOIA" means Freedom Of Information Act ...

and I see there are nine exemptions and three exclusions contained in the statute.
But since they released the Marshall Memo already, I feel quite optimistic about a full disclosure-

so I absolutely can't understand why apparently no UFO researcher has tried it this way before!

[edit on 15-3-2005 by popular mechanics]

posted on Mar, 16 2005 @ 03:31 PM
Just as an FYI, heard back from the Times about the photographer...unfortunately, no name...

[name edited],

I forwarded your email to our photo librarian and here is her response:

" The credit on the page was just "Times photo" which was typical in those
days. I can't locate the original photograph - and it may or may not have had the actual name of the photographer on the back. So, all we can say is it was a Times photo."

Sorry I couldn't be more of a help.

Calvin Hom
Deputy Director of Photography
Los Angeles Times
202 W. 1st Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012
800-LA-TIMES x75321/213-237-5321 (work)
213-494-5277 (cell)

Since his contact name and info is on the LA Times site, left it in the e-mail....

[edit on 16-3-2005 by Gazrok]

posted on Mar, 16 2005 @ 03:38 PM
that is very very funny

posted on Mar, 16 2005 @ 04:46 PM

Originally posted by Gazrok
Just as an FYI, heard back from the Times about the photographer...unfortunately, no name...

Maybe you should contact in regard to the photo. He seems to be very communicative, and strongly interested in the whole subject as well.
I will not be of help in this matter, because I'm currently very tired of reading/thinking/writing in english language.

[edit on 16-3-2005 by popular mechanics]

posted on Mar, 16 2005 @ 05:38 PM
Well that's an unfortunate dead end.

For something as big as that you'd think they would've kept the original print, or at least know where to locate it.

Do I smell...conspiracy?

[edit on 16-3-2005 by John Nada]

posted on Mar, 16 2005 @ 08:34 PM
Not really, from my investigations, it was fairly common at the time not to credit photographers, as the paper bought the photos lock stock and barrell, and it was par for the course.

I will be trying Warren though, I believe he had the photo analysis done....

posted on Apr, 11 2005 @ 12:26 PM
I've e-mailed Frank, will let you know what I hear.

I'll post whatever followup I receive.

posted on Apr, 12 2005 @ 07:55 AM
Ok, I haven't read all of the posts so sorry if this has already been brought up.

The article mentioned that the UFO was pretty much invulnerable to the rounds fired, so I'm wondering if anyone knows(found anything that supports) if we have found a way to pierce "UFO-metal" today? Maybe from some of the debris from Roswell?

A hard question, I know, since not many are likely to know.

posted on Apr, 12 2005 @ 07:59 AM
I haven't seen anything about a successful attempt at piercing such debris. However, I can only think of ONE affadavit regarding the material AFTER the recovery incident, and that was from a Pentagon general (I'd have to look up his exact name). He only saw the material during a briefing though years later.

I think after 50 years and many advances, we've probably been able to do so, but there is no evidence of this that I am aware of, sheer speculation on my part.

posted on Apr, 12 2005 @ 12:49 PM
Well maybe it could be a result of it not being a solid object, although that wouldn't explain the shots bouncing off. I swear sometimes I look at the picture and it looks like a painting, probably a result of the quality of it though.

posted on Apr, 12 2005 @ 12:54 PM
Well, the photo archivist knew well the photo in question, just had no idea of the photographer, as they weren't in the habit of publishing it/recording it, at the time. Also, the photo and negative have been tested, analyzed, etc. (and since it's corraborated by eyewitness testimony, and even the military, seems no reason to question it).

[edit on 12-4-2005 by Gazrok]

posted on Apr, 12 2005 @ 02:06 PM
We got the critiques in here too? It isn't a painting. You can't do better than that? It's an actual photo. The big reason why it never got any attention is because the newspapers were collected by the military from public libraries. That is true. There is an anniversary of the event in Hollywood, California every year and there are people that were alive during the incident who share their stories. You can come this year if you desire. Thing that gets me is UFOs appeared when our weaponry was primitive but those MiGs and modern fighters keep them on the low low when they do appear these days.

posted on Apr, 12 2005 @ 03:26 PM

Originally posted by Asia Minor
We got the critiques in here too? It isn't a painting.

I never said it was. The rest of your post is redundant as it's all already been covered in this thread. Thank you.

posted on Apr, 13 2005 @ 09:26 PM
Apparently, other than the large object in the photo, there were many other objects in the sky at that time:

Anti-aircraft batteries also were firing on other, smaller objects flying in the vicinity. According to one of the witnesses there was a formation of six to nine white and luminous objects flying in triangular formation.

Up to 25 silvery UFOs were also seen by observers on the ground. Editor Peter Jenkins of the Los Angeles Herald Examiner reported, "I could clearly see the V formation of about 25 silvery planes overhead moving slowly across the sky toward Long Beach."

The observation of Long Beach Police Chief J.H. McClelland: "I watched what was described as the second wave of planes from atop the seven-story Long Beach City Hall. I did not see any planes but the younger men with me said they could. An experienced Navy observer with powerful Carl Zeiss binoculars said he counted nine planes in the cone of the searchlight. He said they were silver in color.

A possible coverup?

US Navy Secretary Frank Knox stated that there had been no planes in the sky over Los Angeles and that the anti-aircraft fire was used as a result of a false alarm.

Another witness, who lived near 185th and Vermont, reported to see a plane crash in the vicinity of her house. She could add that debris from the crashed plane was very quickly removed by the soldiers who also cleaned up the whole crash site.


I think the 37th Coastal Artillery Brigade is a good place to start an investigation. I looked around Google and couldn't find a website, but most WWII vets are very proud and hold reunions all the time. If you can find one member of the 37th CA in LA in early 1942, I'm sure he'd be able to point you to others.

It's also interesting to note that the General Marshall who sent a report to the president is the same General Marshall who was the Army Chief of Staff, Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, and creator of the "Marshall Plan" that revitalized Europe after the war. He was also Chairman of the Red Cross and won a Nobel Peace Prize in 1953. He's burried in Arlington National Cemetary. Talk about a credible source!!!

posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 08:32 AM
As we've mentioned, these guys actually recreate the event each year.
So not hard to find (and the site has been linked to earlier in the thread).

Other than that one witness, I've been unable to find anything to substantiate a plane coming down. Surely, others would have seen this too, but nada. I'm more of the opinion that the witness saw debris or an unexploded shell, etc. (which would certainly explain why soldiers would clean it up so quick).

Funny how Knox says no planes, and Marshall's report says suspected planes, isn't it?

posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 06:45 PM

On the first page there was stated that "foreign" aircraft had been in the air and that: "At 5 a.m., the sheriff's office announced that an airplane has been shot down near 185th Street and Vermont Avenue. Earlier, the Fourth Air Force in San Francisco said that at least one plane had been downed in the raid."

If the sherrif's office and the Fourth Air Force announced a plane had been shot down, there must have been more than one witness.

I was thinking more about this case today and I wonder if it's possible for the bright "UFO" in the photo to simply be an overly-bright area created when the searchlight beams crossed each other. Certainly the intersection of two or more beams would produce a spot brighter than any other point of the beams. If you get several of them together and add in the smoke clouds from exploding AA fire, maybe that is what is in the picture?

We look at the shape in the searchlights today and immediately think "UFO" because we are used to all the UFO pictures that have that shape in them. Maybe there is nothing there but because there is a light shape that vaguely resembles a UFO we see it more as one?

posted on Apr, 14 2005 @ 07:19 PM
This pics are from a photo analysis at this site. The analysis was performed by Dr Bruce Maccabee.

This is described as the original image as provided to Dr Maccabee by Frank Warren.

Notice the 'top' of the 'UFO'. It's brighter than the rest of the 'UFO' and appears to be seperated from the rest of the 'craft'. My guess is that it's an exploding AA round like the ones in the background.

These two really show the 'top' of the 'UFO' as being a seperate object. And the disk behind it looks like the area where the searchlights meet.

As far as I'm concerned, that's not a picture of a UFO. It's our minds playing tricks on us after nearly sixty years of flying saucer pictures.

posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 07:30 AM

As far as I'm concerned, that's not a picture of a UFO. It's our minds playing tricks on us after nearly sixty years of flying saucer pictures.

For that to be so, then you'd have to believe that the US Army gunners converged their spotlights on absolutely nothing, then proceeded to fire over 1400 AAA rounds at this nothing, for over an hour, while other witnesses claim to have seen a large, slow-moving object. This action then resulted in the deaths of 6 people on the ground, and yet no one was disciplined for simply firing these AAA rounds for the hell of it.

Is the above what you are then suggesting? That is in essence what you are stating.

posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 10:23 AM
No, I'm not saying they were firing at nothing. There were many, many reports that night of groups of aircraft flying overhead. Marshall's report even mentioned aircraft. Maybe there is an aircraft where those beams converge but the film got saturated with all that light from the timed exposure.


After the firing started, careful observation was difficult because of drifting smoke from shell bursts; yet it was a clear weather night. The acting commander of the anti-aircraft artillery brigade in the area testified that he had first been convinced that he had seen fifteen planes in the air, but had quickly decided that he was seeing smoke.

It looks like aircraft sightings and blackouts were common after the Perl Harbor attack. Here's another excerpt from the source I quoted above:

On December 8, 1941 at 6:00 PM, the first air-raid warning of the night was sounded when air invaders were first detected 100 miles due west of the Golden Gate. First reparts stated that there were 50 planes but later reports gave a smaller number. They were thought tobe planes from a carriet Some of them were thought to have entered the Bay Area and headed southwest.The next night San Francisco underwent two alarms, the first at 1:45 AM,and then again at 2:02 AM. A Uackout was called for and almost immediately planes were heard in the sky all roundthe Bay Area. Another alert came at4:05 AM. Lt. General John L. DeWitt warned that there was a real attack by enemy planes and that California should be prepared. Wednesday December 10, 1941, allof Southern California and the area from Las Vegas to Boulder Coloradowere blacked out shortly after 8 PM. Anti-aircraft gunners were put on alert. Invading planes were reported in the Los Angeles area and south ofthe city. One of the longest blackouts of the war came on December 12th, at 7:20PM. Invading planes were first detected offshore; the first reports came from San Mateo. Invisible, they could be heard as they roared low over the tall buildings inSan Francisco' business district. Many reports during the blackouts were from people who heard planes overhead and assumed they were either Japanese planes or our own planes inpursuit. We know they were not ourplanes. If they were not Japanese planes, Wednesday December 10,1941, all of Southern California and the area from Las Vegas to Boulder Colorado were blacked outshortly after 8 PM. Anti-aircraft gunners were put on alert. Invading planes were reported in the Los Angeles area and south of the city.

The people of the west coast were paranoid of a Japanese attack, and rightly so. Look at all the nervousness and false alarms in the first few weeks after 9/11. There may even be something to the sightings of a large, slow moving object in the sky that night.

I'm not disputing that this event occured or that there were unknown objects in the sky that night, I just don't think we're seeing a pic of a flying saucer caught in searchlights. I think the picture has a shape that is suggestive of a flying saucer, so that is what our brain immediately interprets the object to be. Like when people see Jesus in a stain on the sidewalk, or Satan in a cloud of smoke. Some of the WTC pictures that show 'helicopters' and 'UFO's' above thw towers are just billows of smoke.

There are some cases that truly defy explanation that I believe are genuine UFO's. But I'm always skeptical at first. The sheer number of reports of flights or waves of aircraft greatly outweighs the number of reports of a slow, low flyer in this incident.
The article above is an interesting one with more information than what the typical UFO sites give. It talks about how many Japanese-American citizens were arresting during and after the raid for signalling to the aircraft. There were reports of an aircraft plant being bombed but no damage was done to the plant. It also lists many witnesses who saw groups of aircraft in the sky.

I saw a website the other night that I can't find now which was an autobiography of a high ranking army officer who was in the area at the time. From the reading, it sounded like he was placed in charge of coastal defense for the west coast. He mentioned the 37th CA several times in the chapter I read. What was interesting is that he mentions barage baloon teams that were positioned up and down the coast. Maybe the reports of a large, slow moving object were simply a barage baloon?

I can find lots and lots of witness accounts that describe seeing formations of aircraft, and some that mention baloons, but none that mention anything that seems unusual, as in UFO activity.

Some of the sources I've found (like the last link I posted) mention there was a Congressional investigation into the incident because Congress was upset that all this damage had been done on the ground when the Navy official stated that there were no aircraft, it was just a mistake. I'm sure if we dig we can find the findings of the Congressional hearing. That may clarify things.

(edited to fix a missing /quote tag)

[edit on 15-4-2005 by PeanutButterJellyTime]

posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 10:34 AM

No, I'm not saying they were firing at nothing. There were many, many reports that night of groups of aircraft flying overhead. Marshall's report even mentioned aircraft. Maybe there is an aircraft where those beams converge but the film got saturated with all that light from the timed exposure.

So then we're to believe that the 37th are simply the most inept artillery crew of all time? Firing over 1400 rounds for over an hour and not downing one plane? Which is it? Firing at nothing, or firing at planes? If not something completely unique, has to be one or the other. Marshal's report said "maybe" aircraft, "maybe" enemy planes, etc. It was purposefully ambiguous.

If a balloon is to blame, then I'm curious as to what kind of ballon it is you think that could stand up to numerous AAA rounds bursting around it and still remain airborne...

Even the military can't make up it's mind... (from your own link above)

The only place that 15 planes could have come from was an aircraft carrier. A thorough search of the waters off the coast, however, revealed nothing. When confronted with this technical detail, Stimson asserted that the planes may have been "enemy agents flying commercial planes to demoralize civilians, disclose anti-aircraft positions and the effectiveness of blackouts." This version of events had the added benefit of explaining why no bombs were dropped.

No sooner had Stimson come out with the Army's statement than Navy Secretary Frank Knox, when asked about the raid, contradicted his opposite number. "There were no planes over Los Angeles last night," he said; the whole thing was "a false alarm."

So, a swarm of enemy planes (who go through all of this trouble only to NOT drop any bombs), or imagination...doesn't matter which one you choose, neither fits the circumstances described nor common sense.

This BS idea of the civilian planes to identify AAA sites etc. is an equally ludicrous excursion into it'd be a suicide run. (if true, this would mean that the gunners couldn't shoot down unarmed civilian planes!
Ok, sure...
) Kind of pointless to identify AAA sites if you're dead and can't report it.

[edit on 15-4-2005 by Gazrok]

new topics

top topics

<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in