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: 7
15
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 11:26 AM
link   
I've found a few other sources, like this one which mention the confusion over the event. I'm starting to believe that the initial panic was caused by a sighting of a lost balloon or some other object, and that a serious case of 'war jitters' as it has been called, led to all the erroneous reports. Some people saw hundreds of aircraft, others saw nothing.

The 37th CA were fresh out of training, having been moved to LA shortly before this event took place. Even the experienced German AA crews were pretty inaccurate with AA fire. In WWII you estimated the height of the aircraft, set a fuze on the artillery shell, and fired the shell in the general vicinity of the aircraft, hoping the shell would explode close enough to the aircraft to damage it. While there was some skill to doing this, a kill was mainly luck. Look at the video from the Gulf wars where the skies over Baghdad light up with AA fire and yet no planes get hit.

It is aparent that once the shelling started all visibility in the sky was lost. The eplosions and smoke blanketed everything, making any sightings highly skeptical. The source above says that many of the sightings of aircraft were simply shrapnel from the AA rounds.

This case does seem very interesting initially, but the more I dig the more skeptical I become. If you simply look at the stories on the UFO sites it looks like there really was a UFO over LA. But from looking at more and more sources I'm seeing more and more pieces of the puzzle, and I just can't believe the object was a UFO.

Because of all the confusion we'll probably never know the truth to this matter. Picture any part of the country today at night, under a blackout, with 1400 AA rounds exploding in the sky, the sky filled with explosions, smoke, shrapnel, and searchlights. Imagne the sightings and eyewitness reports that would come out of such an event. I again have to point to all the false terrorist reports that came out in the first few weeks after 911. Bomb scares in the Empire State Building. Restricted airspace violations. Suspicious packages causing the Capital building to be evacuated. This is the same mindset that the people of the west coast were in after the Perl Harbor attack. Hell, just two nights prior to this event a Japanese sub was off the coast shelling an oil refinery. I can't imagine what those people were going through, but I feel it was the cause of all the varied reports.

I'm very open-minded and I'm waiting for some more evidence that this was indeed a UFO. I want to believe, but so far with this story I just can't.




posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 11:36 AM
link   


This case does seem very interesting initially, but the more I dig the more skeptical I become. If you simply look at the stories on the UFO sites it looks like there really was a UFO over LA. But from looking at more and more sources I'm seeing more and more pieces of the puzzle, and I just can't believe the object was a UFO.


One major thing you're forgetting with your balloon theory, then mass hysteria....

The reason for the blackout was radar returns. (multiple radar returns). This is what triggered it all. The other problem is the absence of any balloon debris recovered.

Then, I'd direct you to read the history account you linked to. There were different batteries SEEING objects, firing upon them, only to then have them go out of range. This seems to defy the idea of firing at nothing.

As for Iraq, the aircraft of today's AF can take a bit more than that of '42. Some planes WERE lost, and many more came home with all kinds of AAA damage.

Since no carrier was found for the "enemy planes" to return to in the LA incident, nor were any planes found in the surrounding area, then the enemy planes surviving AAA fire idea becomes a non issue, as they would have had to have landed or crashed eventually.

I suppose we could go back and forth on this indefinitely, but I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree on this...


[edit on 15-4-2005 by Gazrok]



posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 12:18 PM
link   
Have one of the resident photo experts, like jritzmann, taken a look at this and given their opinion? I didn't see anything of the sort in the thread, but I might have missed it...



posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 12:26 PM
link   
Bruce McAbee's analysis was linked to I believe, earlier in the thread. In my opinion, the photo really is inconsequential. There is press confirmation of the event....military confirmation of the event....and of course, numerous eyewitnesses. I'd agree with the assessment of the "top" of the UFO being an AAA shell bursting. The photo however does show the spotlights converging on a target of some sort, and numerous AAA rounds exploding around it (indeed perhaps even a direct hit by that photo).

It could be the spotlights converging on air, and it still wouldn't matter. The point being we've got radar returns, a blackout ordered, targets sighted, and then a barrage commencing. If firing at nothing, it wouldn't have taken an hour to figure this out. If firing at planes, then at least ONE would be hit, and regardless, a carrier would be found (if enemy planes), or numerous civilian planes would be found missing (if that cockamamee theory was believed). Since none of this is the case, we're left with it being highly improbable they fired for so long at nothing, and it being impossible for it to have been enemy or civilian planes. Therefore, just what the hell was it? The simple answer....we don't know.



posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 01:08 PM
link   
The radar returns were received earlier in the evening and the disappeared when the objects were still a few miles out to sea. That is what prompted the blackout order, I agree with you.

I spent six years in the Navy and as I said in the thread about UFO's over DC in '52 I've seen plenty of 'zoomers' or bogus radar returns. I don't know how long these returns existed, time-wise, but there are a lot of things that can affect a bogus return. If the radar is not tuned just right (and they require constant tweaking based on amplifier output at that time, atmospheric conditions, proximity to land, receiver sensitivity, etc.) you can track zoomers for a long time. This is what a dopler weather radar does. I don't think that happened in the DC case but here you have the radars, which were a relatively new invention at the time, being recently placed in the area, and manned by crews who were most likely inexperienced at operating a radar. There is another atmosphere-related radar anomoly called 'ducting'. This is where atmospheric conditions cause the RF energy from the radar to bend around the curvature of the earth. The result is that you pick up targets that appear to be close but are actually over the radar horizon. Ducting can be a mixed blessing. Radars today can take advantage of ducting to increase their surface search range. But when ducting occurs and you don't recognize it all kinds of weird things can happen. As an example, if you pick up surface targets over the horizon and ducting isn't recognized, you could interpret them as air targets because they are over the horizon of the radar and therefore don't appear to be surface targets. I don't know how much the phenomenom of ducting was understood in the early days of radar. That could have been the cause of the returns.

I also don't dispute the large number of aircraft sightings. I have to question the accuracy of the reports however. It seems that there were thousands of reports of aircraft in the skies that night, yet none of them seem to agree. It's as if everyone saw something different.


Since no carrier was found for the "enemy planes" to return to in the LA incident, nor were any planes found in the surrounding area, then the enemy planes surviving AAA fire idea becomes a non issue, as they would have had to have landed or crashed eventually


This also raises the question "Were there really any planes in the sky at all?".

I think if there was ever a case to prove mass hysteria, this would be it. The surprise attack of Perl Harbor just 10 weeks prior, the air raid sirens and blackouts almost nightly for two weeks, the Navy issuing a statement that a surprise attack would hit LA in the next 24 hours, the Japanese sub shelling a nearby oil refinery two nights before. Then all the sudden another blackout and over an hour of anti-aircraft fire and searchlights lighting up the skies, along with flares supposedly dropped and allegations of Japanese-American citizens signalling the aircraft. Yeah, I'd say the people of LA would have been pretty hysterical then.

I agree we'll both disagree on this and won't sway each other's opinions. I am more curious now than ever about this event and I'm going to keep researching it.



posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 01:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by GAZROK:

(...) will need a trip to the library and hopefully find a microfiche or request archives (if such papers are still around or being kept)



Originally posted by ASIA MINOR:

(...) the newspapers were collected by the military from public libraries. That is true.



May I ask if this truth has been ascertained yet ?






[edit on 15-4-2005 by popular mechanics]



posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 02:03 PM
link   
Not that this is going to help any but My Dad was up to my home to welcome my son back form Iraq so I ask him about this event, showing him this web site and thread. Dad and Mom lived near the LA area in '42. He doesn't remember anything about the " Battle of LA" . He does remember the Jap Sub.

Just thought I would share form some one who was there.

Roper



posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 02:03 PM
link   


May I ask if this truth has been ascertained yet ?


I know of no such collection of newspapers. Most simply accepted the military non-answer at the time (much as they did with Roswell), and simply let it go.

Collecting the papers would have been a bad move really, as the public seemed placated at the time. I personally saw the article on microfiche, and as I said, it can be ordered easily enough through the LA Times archives (or also as a mentioned, the cheaper route of a simply souvenir, designed for "day you were born" kind of thing, but you can specify any date...).

As for the radar returns, in the '52 case, even the military eventually bowed out, even after preparing a lengthy report for using the radar explanation....it was eventually put back to "unknown". Oddly enough, the LA incident isn't in Bluebook to my knowledge, though it is in a couple of alleged documents (i.e. not through FOIA, so unable to verify if authentic).

The LA guys were shooting at something or nothing. If something, we'd have some crashed or missing planes. We don't. If nothing, seems hard to believe it would go on for so long, plus this is counter to eyewitness reports (and common sense). I don't doubt the problems with early radar...still, even without it, we have the above scenario. Also, in the '52 case, multiple stations confirmed the returns, and military pilots as well as civilian pilots had visuals on the targets.



Not that this is going to help any but My Dad was up to my home to welcome my son back form Iraq so I ask him about this event, showing him this web site and thread. Dad and Mom lived near the LA area in '42. He doesn't remember anything about the " Battle of LA" . He does remember the Jap Sub.


Not surprising really. Since the government claimed it was "jitters" the next day, I'm sure it faded easily enough into obscurity. The sub incident was only a couple days prior, so any sounds of AAA they may recall, are likely connected to the sub shelling in their memories....

[edit on 15-4-2005 by Gazrok]



posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 03:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok

(...) Oddly enough, the LA incident isn't in Bluebook to my knowledge, though it is in a couple of alleged documents (i.e. not through FOIA, so unable to verify if authentic).

The LA guys were shooting at something or nothing. (...)


Don't forget that you still have to prove convincingly that they were shooting at all !

You only have the LA Times article so far. Apart from that, the physical existence and actual authenticity of the photo, as well as the existence of alleged witnesses, or any other document concerning this matter seems unprovable. Obviously, the story is a newspaper hoax, and your initial enthusiasm waned accordingly. Of course you only had the best intentions, but I think that it's time to admit that the story is untenable, or to come up with more tangible proof-

especially any proof outside of internet sites.





[edit on 15-4-2005 by popular mechanics]



posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 03:49 PM
link   
... and Gazrok:

Please don't use this smiley in your reply:



posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 03:51 PM
link   


Don't forget that you still have to prove convincingly that they were shooting at all !


Huh?

Please read through the thread, you'll see that there is also an FOIA released memo from Marshal to the President regarding the incident...
There is NO dispute that the event occurred, it's a matter of historic fact. The last link provided by PBJ in fact, was from a history reference site. Again, there is NO need to prove they were shooting at all. That's like asking me to prove the A-Bombs were dropped on Japan. It's a matter of record.

Nevermind, I'll do the work for you... Please feel free to check the document number in the official government FOIA archives....



SECRET

February 26, 1942.

OCS 21347-86

MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT:

The following is the information we have from GHQ
at this mement regarding the air alarm over Los Angeles of
yesterday morning:

"From details available at this hour:

1. Unidentified airplanes, other then American
Army or Navy planes, were probably over Los Angeles, and
were fired on by elements of the 37th CA Brigade ( AA )
between 3:12 and 4:15 AM. These units expended 1430
rounds of ammunition.

2. As many as fifteen airplanes may have
been involved, flying at various speeds from what is
officially reported as being very slow to as much
as 200 MPH and at elevations from 9000 to 18000 feet.

3. No bombs were dropped.

4. No casualties among our troops.

5. No planes were shot down.

6. No American Army or Navy planes were in action.

Investigation continuing. It seems reasonable to conclude
that if unidentified airplanes were involved they may have
been from commercial sources, operated by enemy agents for
purposes of spreeding alarm, disclosing location of antiair-
craft positions, and slowing production through blackout.
Such conclusion is supported by varying speed of operation and
the fact that no bombs were dropped.

Gen. George C. Marshall

Chief Of Staff



[edit on 15-4-2005 by Gazrok]



posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 04:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by GAZROK:

Huh?



I was trying to imply that it's easy to humbug the internet audience by faking documents.
And I retract my comment if you have made your own FOIA inquiry and received the same information.

Yes, it would have been more fair to just ask you if the firing is ascertained truth.


There is NO dispute that the event occurred, it's a matter of historic fact. The last link provided by PBJ in fact, was from a history reference site


A sublink on this site also gives a comparatively unspectacular explanation for the event, allegedly published by Matt Weinstock in the Daily News.
Obviously, his article was not, and is not very popular ( Assumedly because he defers to balloons ...) .

There is no dispute that the reported objects were not officially identified. But UFOs do not necessarily come from outer Space, and to my mind you (Gazrok) present the incident as an indirect proof of extraterrestrial beings, which I think is nothing but a corruptive idea and wishful thinking.






[edit on 15-4-2005 by popular mechanics]



posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 04:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by GAZROK:

(...) Please feel free to check the document number in the official government FOIA archives....



How can I do that?



posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 08:40 PM
link   
Use the OCS number given in the memo and visit the FOIA site. It isn't in their electronic reading room (most of this starts in 1947), but you can request it via e-mail. I would suggest going to the NARA FOIA site to e-mail them. CUFON (Computer UFO Network) received it back in '86 as part of their requested files (though most of their online archive starts at '47 as well.) It was document #25 of their request. Also, as you've seen, various reliable history sites have referenced the memo and even skeptic sites all do not dispute this. Still, you could always look up the LA Times article in either microfiche at most major libraries, or request it from their archives (albeit for a small fee). I'd wait the time for the FOIA response if you don't want to spend anything.



There is no dispute that the reported objects were not officially identified. But UFOs do not necessarily come from outer Space, and to my mind you (Gazrok) present the incident as an indirect proof of extraterrestrial beings, which I think is nothing but a corruptive idea and wishful thinking.


Correct, UFO doesn't necessarily mean flying saucer. The rejection of the balloon theory isn't wishfull thinking though, it's common sense. If balloons had been the cause, then it wouldn't have been long (certainly not an hour) before it (or them) would have been ripped to shreds and downed with exploding AAA rounds. There would have been balloon debris found. Surely, a military anxious to explain itself would certainly show such debris vs. shooting at phantoms... No, we've got people stating (such as in the LA Times article) they saw a large slow moving object that seemed to be impervious to the AAA fire. Now, maybe such a craft isn't from outer space, but I don't even know of a craft today that can do that while within range of the AAA fire. Not to mention, the evidence suggests it wasn't the Japanese (i.e. no carrier or other support found), and it sure wasn't ours (which is why we shot at), so then whose was it???



posted on Apr, 16 2005 @ 11:49 PM
link   
Hello Folks!

It is funny, I know I first saw the picture of the Battle of LA a long time ago, 10 years, 20, not sure. I have been interested in the subject of UFOs since I was rather young. But at the times I saw the picture I always dismissed it without even a look, it must be from a movie or a hoax, and LA, well that made for an easy snap judgement.

I knew it had to be fake because if a picture like that existed, in public, in 1942 we would not have been wondering about them in the 70s when I started reading.

Then one day a few years ago I happened upon the story of the Battle of LA. I read, and then sat there just stunned. That picture is the most clearly real picture of a UFO(s) ever. Tens of thousands of people saw it.


I guess in a way it is better that I did not really understand what that picure was until now. Seeing that years ago would have so settled the basic matter that I might not have spent as much time as I have really digging into the subject. And I might not find it as easy to understand why others have a hard time with any of these ideas.

To me, 12 years old at the time and learning about Infinity and Space. Infinite Space, infinite Stars means infinite Planets. We exist, and so must others it is ego and nothing more to say anything else. Sure the Sun revolves around the Earth, no wait... we know that is silly now don't we. But there was a time when that was TRUTH.

So the most obvious idea is that there are people, beings, that range from the single cell to as advanced as you want to get. But I do not see perfection as part of real life, it is an ideal and one only achieved by limiting the rules to some finite set. What I mean is that if 1+1 = 2 is the only standard, then there are a lot of people who are perfect at math.

No matter how advanced, things happen, that is life, mortal life at least and if you want to discuss another kind of life that would be a different topic. So what would surprise me is if we never saw anything, if nothing ever crashed, that would be amazing.


The Battle of LA is simple, plain, honest and in black and white. Something, or Someone visited and we shot the heck out of them. It moved slow, reports are of 1/4 to 1/10 the speed of a bomber or fighter of the day. Nothing at all like what we have today. Against something of that speed we could only miss so much.

Nothing from Earth could have survived, but it did and flew off. The eyewitness reports are going to be all over the place, the people have no frame of reference to use, so they tell it in a way that makes some sort of sense to them. Remember the times, the authorities did not have the option of saying 'We do not know', we were not in anyway ready, not everyone is sure we are ready today, let alone in 1942. So despite my desire to see this subject completely out in the open I understand what happened back then and I think it was the only course.

The Battle of LA is the most simple test I know of, show the picture, read the story. If you cannot at least take the step of 'other life does exist, in whatever form it might be' then you just cannot. That is each person's right and I do not insult the beliefs of others, but I will suggest where they might not be correct or could use some expansion.


A.T
(-)



posted on Apr, 17 2005 @ 01:26 AM
link   
Hmmm?

As usual Gazrok you present Middle thoughts and Cautious comments and your certainly ufoknowlegable.

What I wish to ask from you Sir is, do you Believe in UFOs/EBEs or do you represent another point of view ?

Dallas



posted on Apr, 17 2005 @ 07:55 AM
link   


What I wish to ask from you Sir is, do you Believe in UFOs/EBEs or do you represent another point of view ?


Belief in unidentified flying objects isn't exactly difficult. However, I'm assuming you're really asking if I believe that some UFOs are ships from another world, and flown by an extraterrestrial intelligence? For me, this isn't a matter of belief...it's simply the only logical conclusion to come to based on the evidence at hand. Even the military (in countless documents and in their own efforts to understand the phenomenon), concedes that such objects simply are above and beyond the capability of any known power. So obviously we're dealing with a power not originating on this planet. As to WHO they are, and WHERE they come from, and WHAT they want, the evidence is sketchy at best. For me, their existence is simply the truth one comes to when looking at everything out there...and these other questions are what REALLY beg to be answered, for these answers are really what is of import to us all. I'm satisfied that we are not alone, now I want to know what they want...



posted on Apr, 17 2005 @ 09:30 AM
link   
I also believe that true UFO's are from civilizations other than our own, but I believe the 'real' sightings are very few and far between. There are hundreds of UFO reports every day and I believe something like 99.99999% of them are not genuine UFO's.

It is simply not plausible to believe that the Earth is the only planet in the entire universe that has life on it. Mainstream astronomy agrees with that statement. In fact, I think there are hundreds of worlds with advanced life on them. I think some will be more advanced than us, but many will be less advanced as well. Factors like the environment of the planets harboring life, mass extinction events, resources available, etc., would be the determining factor in the advancement of the life on any given planet. There have been several mass extinction events during Earth's history. I like to think of this as hitting the reset button for life. If none of these events occured life on Earth today would be far different and far more advanced than us.

When dealing with UFO's I believe they are remote controlled, pilot-less vehicles. Similar to the probes and rovers we send around the solar system. If there are hundreds of advanced races out there, and some more advanced than us with the ability to travel through space, I think they would be very busy studying the life everywhere in the universe and wouldn't devote so much attention to us. I certainly don't think they would conspire with our government to secretly give us technology, but I think they would have an interest in conducting scientific surveys of all the planets that have life on them. We're interested, why wouldn't they be?



posted on Apr, 17 2005 @ 01:21 PM
link   
Originally posted by Gazrok


For me, their existence is simply the truth one comes to when looking at everything out there...and these other questions are what REALLY beg to be answered, for these answers are really what is of import to us all. I'm satisfied that we are not alone, now I want to know what they want...


Many thanks for the information that you have brought forward! I feel the same and could not have said it better!



posted on Apr, 18 2005 @ 07:29 AM
link   


I also believe that true UFO's are from civilizations other than our own, but I believe the 'real' sightings are very few and far between. There are hundreds of UFO reports every day and I believe something like 99.99999% of them are not genuine UFO's.


Believe it or not, I share your pessimism. Out of let's say 1000 UFO reports, maybe 1 of them is genuinely a craft piloted by an ET intelligence (be it remote or otherwise). This of course, doesn't make the phenomenon any less real, nor would it if the number of TRUE alien craft were 1 in 10,000 sightings...., we'd still have the problem on our hands....



new topics

top topics



 
15
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join