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: 8
15
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 23 2005 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by GAZROK:

There is NO dispute that the event occurred, it's a matter of historic fact. (...) NO need to prove they were shooting at all. That's like asking me to prove the A-Bombs were dropped on Japan. (...)

various reliable (...) sites have referenced the memo and even skeptic sites all do not dispute this. (...) CUFON (Computer UFO Network) received it back in '86 as part of their requested files.


Alright,

my initial postulation was obviously unjustified.
I was grumpy, and did not know that CUFON has an official copy of the memo.

But by this time I have also noticed that they have a neat PDF online for us ...







[edit on 23-4-2005 by popular mechanics]




posted on Apr, 24 2005 @ 07:38 AM
link   
No problem...

Extraordinary claims demanding extraordinary evidence...and all.

The official word being left at 1-15 enemy planes fired on, no bombs dropped, no planes down.....or war jitters.

Either way, you're looking at the most incompetent AAA guys in the US Army and/or the most incompetent enemy bombers or pilots (yet competent enough to evade over 1400 rounds of AAA fire)....
Personally, I don't think this the case.

Or, when looking at the details, you see numerous firings on sighted targets that either evade, or seem unaffected by the AAA.



posted on Apr, 24 2005 @ 09:17 AM
link   
What's strange about this event is that obviously there's alot of evidence there to suggest something truly odd went on, and if those rounds hit (which is seems they obviously did) then it again points to the other wordly/fantastical.

However, there's one thing that puts a block on all of this......
There are no space aliens visiting Earth in ships. See the problem here?

So really there's got to be an explaination, maybe it was an overweight, hovering ghost.



posted on Apr, 25 2005 @ 07:55 AM
link   


There are no space aliens visiting Earth in ships. See the problem here?


You mean aside from using an opinion as a logical fact?


I suppose your overweight ghost theory has just as much of a chance, though I'm unsure as to whether ghosts routinely show up on radar...


Looking at the facts:

1. Numerous objects tracked on radar.
2. The objects weren't of any branch of the service.
3. Blackouts ordered, spotlights up.
4. Numerous gun crews sight objects, and fire over 1400 rounds...with various crews sighting various numbers of objects at various intervals.
5. Numerous crews confirming direct hits.
6. No objects downed.
7. Numerous civilians, including press, see the objects.
8. Press coverage, official military statement, all confirming the event, and unknown nature of the objects.
9. The government has two official and conflicting stances.

a. the objects were enemy planes or civilian planes used by enemy agents - though no bombs were dropped and none of these planes were downed. Also, no enemy carrier or sub was found, and no civilian planes reported as missing.

b. it was all war jitters - except that jitters don't register on radar, nor are they sighted by so many witnesses, especially trained gunners, and jitters wouldn't have lasted for an hour....if firing at nothing, this would have been apparent fairly quickly.

10. The cold, logical conclusion is that numerous unidentified objects were able to trigger our defenses, stay over our cities for an hour, get fired upon and hit by AAA fire, and then leave without loss. As to what these objects origin was, who knows, but they seem to defy characteristics of known terrestrial powers either at the time, or indeed since, so what then, can we conclude?



posted on Apr, 25 2005 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gazrok
You mean aside from using an opinion as a logical fact?



Show me hard proof it isn't a fact? You can't, that's the unfortunate thing. You'd probably say show you proof it isn't fact but that's the beauty of it, I don't have to as I'm not the one making fantastical claims. I wish it were true though...



I suppose your overweight ghost theory has just as much of a chance, though I'm unsure as to whether ghosts routinely show up on radar...



Well of course I was joking but if they show up on CTV cameras, why not radar.




1. Numerous objects tracked on radar.
2. The objects weren't of any branch of the service.
3. Blackouts ordered, spotlights up.
4. Numerous gun crews sight objects, and fire over 1400 rounds...with various crews sighting various numbers of objects at various intervals.
5. Numerous crews confirming direct hits.
6. No objects downed.
7. Numerous civilians, including press, see the objects.
8. Press coverage, official military statement, all confirming the event, and unknown nature of the objects.
9. The government has two official and conflicting stances.

a. the objects were enemy planes or civilian planes used by enemy agents - though no bombs were dropped and none of these planes were downed. Also, no enemy carrier or sub was found, and no civilian planes reported as missing.

b. it was all war jitters - except that jitters don't register on radar, nor are they sighted by so many witnesses, especially trained gunners, and jitters wouldn't have lasted for an hour....if firing at nothing, this would have been apparent fairly quickly.


Yeah but there's lots of stories with at least many of these facts that I've sworn in the past must be true and of ET origin e.t.c. yet the truth often turns out to be stranger, more thought provoking yet oddly more down to Earth than we had believed. Or better yet, tricks of the eyes and mind.

I've seen some strange things in my time, yet you have to wonder if you can trust your own memory sometimes...and yes...the memory of a group of people as well. I've even been in situations with friends and relatives over the years where we all remember something and talk about it (I'm talking about at least 10 people here at one time or another) and it turns out that thing didn't exist e.t.c.

How can this be? Too many people saw it and remember it like yesterday right for it to not be real? I don't think so, it's weird the way a certain atmosphere and certain information the brain takes by the same group of people that can make them all remember something the exact same way. That is something I am 100% certain of, I'm just not clever enough to determine the exact cause, although I have half arsed theories.


10. The cold, logical conclusion is that numerous unidentified objects were able to trigger our defenses, stay over our cities for an hour, get fired upon and hit by AAA fire, and then leave without loss. As to what these objects origin was, who knows, but they seem to defy characteristics of known terrestrial powers either at the time, or indeed since, so what then, can we conclude?


Who knows, but I'm willing to bet it's something strangely more down to Earth than we'd ever believed. The truth often turns out to be far stranger than any theories we can come up with in our minds and although they may not seem as exciting at first, if you look closer they are in fact more exciting.

[edit on 25-4-2005 by John Nada]



posted on Apr, 25 2005 @ 02:23 PM
link   


Show me hard proof it isn't a fact? You can't, that's the unfortunate thing.


Ahh..but I said "logical fact", not proven fact, hehe...


Semantics really. You make a valid point, but so far, every conceivable earthly explanation seems to fail to fit the circumstances convincingly, and has done so for the past half century.... In the end though, I suppose we'll never know with this one.



posted on Apr, 25 2005 @ 05:56 PM
link   


Ahh..but I said "logical fact", not proven fact, hehe...



I know, I wouldn't bite to that one, I thought I'd drop the word and hope you wouldn't notice.




but so far, every conceivable earthly explanation seems to fail to fit the circumstances convincingly


Well that's what I'm saying, we really don't know nearly as much as we think we do about our own planet, so maybe we should understand it before looking to the answers in the stars.

[edit on 25-4-2005 by John Nada]



posted on Apr, 25 2005 @ 05:58 PM
link   
I'm all for looking to the ordinary before the extraordinary.

But in this case, the "ordinary" seems to be used up...



posted on May, 1 2005 @ 06:43 PM
link   
My battle of l.a. image enhancement.

hopefully this shows up. (from my blog)

photos1.blogger.com...




posted on May, 26 2005 @ 04:16 AM
link   
Having always been intrigued by this incident and being an avid photoshop addict I did some work on this picture. Since it's late I'll keep it fairly short but I've come to a few conclusions, feel free to disagree with me.

1. Said object is clearly of a reflective nature. The object in question is brighter then any other aspect of the picture causing it to be "blown out" or over exposed. The object shows no discernable details and emits a kind of halo about it. The halo effect would be caused by a reflective surface such as smooth polished metal. On the other hand due to the intensity of the search lights it could possibly be a bright color such as yellow, white, tan, etc

2. Said object is very large. Given the angles of the search lights and their point of convergence, coupled with the size of the emitted light at the base of each beam, the object is massivly larger than the search lights. By this I mean the actual mechanical search lights and not the emitted light beams.

3. Said object is relativly flat. Given that the object in question was shot from an upward angle as evident from the angle of the search beams the over all shape of the object on film is congruent with a saucer like object.

4. Said object has a convex dome shaped compartment on it's upper side. Perhaps at this point this statement is meerly conjecture, however, I believe Dr. MacAbee (in his photo analysis posted by a fellow ATSer) erred in his gamma correction. The convex object on the top is a good 4 to 5 times biger than other artillery detonations visible in the photograph. I believe the effect that caused said error resaults from the angles of the searchlights and the way the light would be cast on a saucer shaped object when lit from below. The outer rims of the saucer like area would concievably cast a rounded shadow on anything above it. By tracing the edges of the light beams on both the left and right side of the object we can draw the casted shadow easily.

5. Said object is slow moving. Given the year, 1942, the available photograph technology, available film, and the long exposure time needed for a night shot, the object would be a streak, much like you see in photos of a highway at night.

6. The object is moving towards the right side of the photo. This too may be speculation but the left side of the object is slightly blurred while the right side is sharper, given what was stated in No. 5 this would be caused by slowly moving left to right.

I suppose that's all I will say for now, perhaps I'll write a longer post with copies of my photo analysis if anyone is interested. I believe we can discern many more facts from this photograph if we had more evidence to go on. Here's a short list of things i think might help us, please feel free to add anything:

1.A daytime photgraph of the area in question, showing the mountains pictured below the object.

2. Specs on the make and model of search light used, namely the circumference of the glass over the lightbulb.

3. Specs on the make and model of the AA guns used, perhaps from this we could discern the size of the blast that would be visible from an aerial detonation and therefore be able to decide wether or not said object in fact has a domed top.

4. If at all possible a map of the locations of the search lights pictured, we could perhaps triangulate a location for the object at the time of the photgraph

5. A topographical map of the location in the photo, perhaps we could figure out the height at which the object was flying and possibly postulate on the size of the object given the size of surrounding reference points. This would also give us a good idea of the object's direction of origin, for instance, did it come from a westward direction as would an aircaraft launched from a japanese naval position.

6. If we could possibly find the protocols for the calling of an air raid and firing of AA guns. This has little to do with the picture but could help shed light on the supposed severity of the object in question and help better convince skeptics. If this were attributed to wartime jitters it stands to reckon this type of thing had happened at least once before or after the incident in question. In my opinion I think you would need a pretty valid reason for firing AA guns for half an hour.

7. Names and death certificates of the civilians killed, and possibly the location and exact time of their demise, the extent of their injuries, possible hospitalizations etc

8. Lastly, and perhaps this will be impossible, but as high a resolution of the picture as we can find, the ones i was working with pixelate when increased in size even slightly.

I apologize if I got slightly carried away but as I said I've always been intrigued by this incident and to me it is better evidence than Roswell given that there is almost no cover up reagrding this. I would be more than happy to write out a longer post with pictures of my analysis if anyone is interested but I'd like to do some more work on it first and hopfully be able to incorporate some of the facts in my list. Anyway, I'll end it here and get back to wandering the depths of ATS, thanks for bringing the topic back up.



posted on May, 26 2005 @ 08:49 AM
link   
"The object...caught in the center of the lights like the hub of a bicycle wheel surrounded by gleaming spokes. The fire seemed to burst in rings all around the object."


That statment she made made me thinking , especially the one where the fire seemed to burst in rings all around the object



posted on May, 26 2005 @ 09:19 AM
link   
The photo is actually the LEAST important aspect to this case.

The radar returns, eyewitness reports, and the military firing but bringing NOTHING down...THOSE are the key important points to focus on here....


What the hell were they shooting at?

Planes? Couldn't be...both US and foreign sources are ruled out by the facts.

Balloons? Couldn't be...even a nearby round would have landed shredded balloon debris on LA. Over 1400 rounds were fired folks!

Imagination? Nope, imagination doesn't show on radar...

So then WHAT was it? The characteristics, as described by witnesses, both civillian and military were: large, slow-moving, invulnerable to AAA fire. Since the conventional explanations seem used up...we're left with the "unconventional"....



posted on May, 27 2005 @ 03:04 AM
link   
This topic has still got me stumped. I've been thinking of explenations of what it could be, givin the year it happened and the evidence at hand, yet I still have trouble coming to a conclusion as to what happened and what it was.

I have come up with one idea. Has there been any documented ufo sightings at that time that could be linked to this. Or was an aircraft downed at all, either in the US or around the world.

That all I have for now.



posted on Jun, 16 2005 @ 12:41 PM
link   
Just found out my college online library has many papers from the date of first publication, online for students.

One of those papers in the LA Times!


Looking around a bit...


EDIT: Damn..was hoping they'd have some credits for the photo, but the ProQuest database apparently didn't license many of the photos, just the articles... At least it's good to know it isn't just on microfiche, but actually online somewhere... I might scour the paper in the following days, see what they said of official updates, etc.

[edit on 16-6-2005 by Gazrok]



posted on Jun, 16 2005 @ 03:29 PM
link   
Very good stuff Shadowflux, way above and all that.

So in your opinion there is a physical something in those searchlights?

Just want to be clear, some people have suggested what to me is absurd, that there is nothing there at all.


Gazrok,

I am not sure I would say the photo is the least important element, perhaps just not the most important. I have been using it as a starting point for some number of months and it has proven to be powerful. With a small amount of set-up, viewing of that picture produces a 'wow' from a wide variety of personality types.

So much of what makes up UFO lore is pictures, and here is one that is real without question. Only the really stuborn can hold onto total doubt once they see that picture.




A.T
(-)



[edit on 6/16/05 by Alexander Tau]



posted on Jun, 23 2005 @ 04:57 PM
link   
I can't wait to see what you guy's dig up one this one.

One thing I find interesting is that , to me it seems as if it was allowing itself to be shot at.

I think that there is evidence of obseravtion of all major military events in modern human history.

This event seems to fit with that evidence in a unique way . WWII was the first War in which Major Decisive Battles played out in the Air. It would then be logical that this aspect of War would be of interest to any observers.

BTW a quick calculation gives 1430 AAA rounds , over 49 minutes = one round every 2 seconds. Hard to believe nothing but shrapnel fell out of the sky that night!

Oh and one more thing , the use of a blimp in the re-enactments is some what suggestive that there truly was a large object involved.

[edit on 23-6-2005 by lost_shaman]



posted on Jun, 24 2005 @ 09:21 AM
link   


Oh and one more thing , the use of a blimp in the re-enactments is some what suggestive that there truly was a large object involved.


That's an interesting point...
As the reenactment is done by some of the guys actually around then....



posted on Jun, 24 2005 @ 11:35 AM
link   
There are public libraries, especially in California, that have this article on microfilm. That is how I verified it for myself. Prints were 5 cents per pages. There are also many interesting tangents from this story in the LA Times articles.

For instance, this incident sparked a great deal of paranoia about Japanese-Amercians in California, eventually leading to the internment camps. Because this incident remained unexplained or inadequately explained, lack of evidence of Japanese-American involvement did not quell the public's fears. If you read the newpaper articles from that time period, you can see how this scape-goating paranoia evolved from this and other UFO sightings.

This also makes me wonder if the ET's were conducting some sort of experiments on us during WWII, to see how well they could manipulate human beings into turning on each other. I have read various accounts that ET's influenced Nazi concentration camps as well. But I have not been able to get confirmation on that.



posted on Jun, 24 2005 @ 03:29 PM
link   
I first saw it on microfiche too, but I was just kind of jazzed at it being online...as it is a HELL of a lot easier to look for info that way versus the old microfiche....
Of course, one has to be enrolled in the school....
Just a nice bonus I came across....and as time permits, I'll check out the follow up articles...



posted on Dec, 13 2005 @ 04:36 PM
link   
Hello


A Coast to Coast AM listener has released the original CBS Morning News broadcast from the morning of Feb 24, 1942 containing a detailed news report of the ufo incident over Los Angeles the previous evening. Thanks to him


Check it out here : www.coasttocoastam.com...

You can also download the mp3 file here : www.checktheevidence.com...




top topics



 
15
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join