The Smoking (Anti-Aircraft) Guns (of Los Angeles, 1942)

page: 2
88
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 01:41 AM
link   
asked my dad about this incident. He was in the airforce and said that the japs sent these over. I doubt it from what I have been looking at. I tried looking up stuff but haven't fouund anything not already posted.
Is there a place to get hard copied of the actual news reports? I would like to get them for my own records. printing up this off the computer is not what i want. I want hard copies from the publishers. Is that Possible???




posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 01:54 AM
link   
Here is the actual account of a LA Air Warden from the timw

www.rense.com...

Interesting read.

www.damninteresting.com...

The Air Raid Warden says that the planes fired on the ship. The other article says the AF said they were only on alert. Reminds me of what happened the other day in Texas

sorry about the double post

[edit on 25-1-2008 by Timmyboi23]



posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 03:26 AM
link   
How much info?
Great bit of research!

I actually believe that something was in the sky over LA that night, but as to exactly what it was I'm not sure. I can - and will - offer a few opinions in a minute.

Firstly though, I have to start on a difficult note. The photograph that appears so many times in your info - its not the actual image is it? By that I mean, its not the original genuine photo. Even if it was you would need to do a full proper analysis on the negative and not on the photo itself. Digitial enhancements of scanned black and white newspaper photo's can't really prove anything I'm afraid
Without wading through the books on the subject - something I'm convinced you have done - I have no idea if an analysis of the negatives was done. Was that the case?

From a purely visual POV, what I personally see is beam convergence, with a bright flak flash at the top that just happens to make it look like the dome on a UFO. But I'll qualify that with the fact that I can't say that for sure and its open to individual interpretations, and if the negative was analysed and shows something different then fair enough.

Back to my opinions...

The Japanese had some interesting projects in WW2.

Crazy, but this is true - one was the idea that they could introduce bubonic plague and other nasties to the US by floating carrier rats across the Pacific on balloons.

The other was the use of aircraft, launched from submarines - yes submarines - to start huge forest fires by dropping incendiaries on dry woodland. Several raids were mounted although none proved particularly successful

Its possible that the battle was sparked by a baloon cluster, or by a sub launched plane, and fuelled by national pride, and reflection off low lying cloud. Possible mind, not definite.

So, I am most certainly not debunking this subject Witness, far from it. I'm looking for more information than I've got time to read up on right now. I've read about the battle itself but never took the time to get into the full detail and you have so please, could you let me know how the points I've raised above have been addressed?



posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 06:57 AM
link   
I dont know anything about The Battle of L.A but find it very interesting
..one thing that does come to mind is if someone is familiar with search lights could they have an Idea how wide the beam was at the point where it was lighting up the ufo to calculate how big it was...

Ackers...



posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 09:08 AM
link   
Flag & Star

The Battle of LA is the biggest under investigated UFO incident I’m aware of. I applaud your efforts to compile the known information into one thread. It looks like you’ve done quite a bit of homework in preparation for this post. I’m looking forward to checking out all of your links.

I’ve been interested in the story since I ran into it on Rense. I wrote one of the stories you linked to and did the photo enhancement that I feel clearly shows a saucer shaped craft right in the crosshairs of the search lights. Doing that enhancement was very much like having a UFO sighting of my own. I was able to see something that was in the photo all the time but was hidden by the brightness of the poorly contrasted image. I’ve watched/read almost everything about Roswell, but for me the Battle of LA is the story that has increased my belief in UFOs/Aliens the most.

I encourage your efforts and wish you all the luck you'll need to get more information on this story.

Rense Story



posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 09:20 AM
link   
This incident has fascinated me too for a long time, my first impression was that the beams were converging on a 'mothership' and the other objects are the smaller speres/globes/orbs that have been seen regularly around the World over several centuries.
I feel sure that the small craft are in fact spherical as they all appear circular, if they were saucer shaped,then you would expect at least some to appear to be a different shape according to their orienation.
This a welcome in depth investigation in to this incident, and I look forward to following it as it unfolds.
I have seen these spheres myself in recent years, in broad daylight, they also appear in many of the Clementine Lunar Photos.
Many thanks to all, keep up the good work,
Regards,
Horsegiver.



posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by horsegiver
I feel sure that the small craft are in fact spherical as they all appear circular, if they were saucer shaped,then you would expect at least some to appear to be a different shape according to their orienation.

Horsegiver.


I'm pretty sure the small lighted objects you're talking about are high explosive anti-aircraft fire or the smoke from them being illuminated by the searchlights. There were several batteries of AA firing at the craft. They shot over 1400 rounds at it, and couldn't bring it down.



posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 12:02 PM
link   
I actually read that book(Above Top Secret) like six years ago.We have a really good selection of books dealing with UFO's at the library. The Battle of L.A. is probably one of the most mysterious happenings in America.This should go into the top 10 Best of Ufos if there was such a list because as the author of this thread said, It has not been explained to this day.


Mod Edit: Big Quote – Please Review This Link.



[edit on 25-1-2008 by Dulcimer]



posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 12:32 PM
link   
The 3 inch AA gun seems to be a close match to the info given about the shells being used. They said 12.8 LB, but my search for that only seemed to have turned up pages talking about the Battle of LA. They may have meant 12.5 LB.

Source


The 3 inch Anti-Aircraft dates back to the First World War and was still in service at the beginning of the Second World War. While the 3.7" was superior in performance to the 3" anti-aircraft gun the 3.7" was not yet available in sufficient numbers and the 3" was much lighter which meant it had greater mobility, it also had a high rate of fire and a good transverse speed. Production of the guns had ceased in Britain well before the war but a number were still undergoing conversion and mobile platforms were still being built at the beginning of the war. It's interesting to note that some guns were still being built in India up until 1943.

3" Anti-Aircraft Gun Data
Weight of gun and breech 2,250lb
Total length 140"
Length of bore 45 cal
Rifling 20 grooves, 1/30
Elevation -10, +90 degrees
Traverse 360 degrees
Weight in Action 6,000lb
Rate of fire 20-25
Projectile weight 16.5lb/12.5lb
Muzzle velocity 2,000/2,500fps
Max horizontal range 12,400/10,900 yards
Max Ceiling 15,700/23,500 feet


The 37th Coast Artillery Brigade was based in Camp Haan, Riverside.
Source



posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 01:47 PM
link   
reply to post by Timmyboi23
 


WOW! There is a lot to respond to in this thread today, I'll do my best


Let's start with Timmyboi's question. Yes, you can get original copies of most if not all of these newspapers.

The site: www.newspaperarchive.com...
Is where I found the digital representation of most. It costs money, but you can get a week pass and get all your research done in that week.

For actual printed papers you would need to go to each source itself, and order a reprint. These can get pricey. I'm really at the point where I've simply collected a database of the articles that reference the event. Anyone willing to spend the $ to get the original articles would be a huge help in this investigation. I simply cannot afford to do so now, and will try to in the future if nobody has done it by the time I can afford it


Also, I'm pretty sure it would violate copyright laws to publish a transcript of an original article here (although it would help a lot!) But summaries are good, and you can always post relevent text with proper sourcing.

I hope that answers your question Tim
Thanks for participating!



posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 02:10 PM
link   
Hi Neformore! Before I begin to address your post, I just have to say that I was reading the 'Are ETs That Stupid?' thread just yesterday. You have a truly amazing mind, and I'm honored that you would turn it to this issue.
I hope others from that thread, like Ecoterrestrial and Tayga jump in here too. Intelligent analysis is the only way were going to get to the bottom of this event, and the more folks interested in such analysis the better. Welcome! On to your questions...


Originally posted by neformore
Firstly though, I have to start on a difficult note. The photograph that appears so many times in your info - its not the actual image is it? By that I mean, its not the original genuine photo. Even if it was you would need to do a full proper analysis on the negative and not on the photo itself. Digitial enhancements of scanned black and white newspaper photo's can't really prove anything I'm afraid
Without wading through the books on the subject - something I'm convinced you have done - I have no idea if an analysis of the negatives was done. Was that the case?


It's a difficult note indeed. To be perfectly honest with you, I'm not certain what images were used for what enhancements by different analysts. That's one of the main reasons I wanted to compile all of this data, is to perhaps glean the answers to that question.

There are two images that are claimed to be the 'Original', and two more that claim to be 'the original negative'. Each has subtle differences, and without the LA Times commenting, I'm not sure how to determine what is the original and what isn't. I've written to the LA Times, but have not yet received a response.

I can say that MY analysis (not image analysis mind you, but analysis of the image in an attempt to ascertain the photographer's location) deals with the image itself, and not the negative. I used the first picture listed in the Images section of the report, since it's the largest and seems to contain the highest resolution. I put the photo in MS Paint, and reduced it's size by 50%, so that it would fit well in a post here at ATS. I simply added the red lines you see to help bring out certain features like the searchlights and mountains. I fully believe we can find the location of the photographer using clues from the image itself. That's as far as my personal image analysis has gone thus far. I would LOVE it if Bruce Maccabee and Frank Warren (Frank is a member here) would weigh in on their image analysis. Bruce's site contains information on what he did to the pics too.


Originally posted by neformore
From a purely visual POV, what I personally see is beam convergence, with a bright flak flash at the top that just happens to make it look like the dome on a UFO. But I'll qualify that with the fact that I can't say that for sure and its open to individual interpretations, and if the negative was analysed and shows something different then fair enough.


I would agree that it's difficult to determine what is in the picture. The work on the image in Bruce Maccabee's analysis seems to show an object in the beams, with defined edges.

What makes me think that there is something there, is the fact that the AA shells are exploding against something, and not simply travelling on to complete their arc of momentum and falling to ground at a distance. If there wasn't anything in the sky to impact against, physics tells us those shells would keep on travelling.

That's just my take, and I'm certainly willing to examine evidence to the contrary




Originally posted by neformore
Back to my opinions...
The Japanese had some interesting projects in WW2.

Crazy, but this is true - one was the idea that they could introduce bubonic plague and other nasties to the US by floating carrier rats across the Pacific on balloons.

The other was the use of aircraft, launched from submarines - yes submarines - to start huge forest fires by dropping incendiaries on dry woodland. Several raids were mounted although none proved particularly successful

Its possible that the battle was sparked by a baloon cluster, or by a sub launched plane, and fuelled by national pride, and reflection off low lying cloud. Possible mind, not definite.


I agree it's a possibility. I've considered it too. Nohup has a similar theory, and to be perfectly honest I'm not certain yet and feel more analysis should be done.

The problem I keep coming back to with the 'balloon cluster' and 'sub launched plane' theories, is that we couldn't shoot this object down. That's after over an hour of shelling, and over 1400 shells. YES, absolutely the japanese balloons and sub-launched planes existed at the time, but neither could hover (the planes were gliders and the balloons would be influenced by the wind) and neither could take that kind of punishment from our AA gunners.

Also, for reference, I have a great respect for Japanese ingenuity. Their ideas were really quite inspired. Forest Fires are one of the top threats to California today.


Originally posted by neformore
So, I am most certainly not debunking this subject Witness, far from it. I'm looking for more information than I've got time to read up on right now. I've read about the battle itself but never took the time to get into the full detail and you have so please, could you let me know how the points I've raised above have been addressed?


Hope I've been able to help. I'll be honest though Neformore, I'm still investigating too!
I'm certain though that if people like you and I keep digging into this, we'll at the very least be able to make a solid comprehensive list of what it WASN'T! Thank you indeed for bringing these points up. I look forward to reading and thinking about your arguments in the future, both on this thread and others.



posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 02:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by ackers46
I dont know anything about The Battle of L.A but find it very interesting
..one thing that does come to mind is if someone is familiar with search lights could they have an Idea how wide the beam was at the point where it was lighting up the ufo to calculate how big it was...

Ackers...


WFA does a happy dance!!!

I'm glad I'm not the only one with this question Ackers

I'm trying to find the data on the searchlights. I'm hoping that there will be another 'Re-Enactment' this February, where I can go and get a look (and pictures of) at the lights myself. The specs should be available to reference, if we can get model numbers, etc. This is another question that we can answer, if we can simply acquire more data. That data is out there, and I highly encourage any who are curious to look for it.

I haven't found it yet, but there are so many aspects to this event that it's hard to tackle them all at once. That's why I brought my research public here at ATS. Hopefully through teamwork we can find ALL of these answers


I'll be looking, and I hope that others will join me. If anyone finds data on the searchlights, PLEASE post it here!



posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by LazyGuy
I wrote one of the stories you linked to and did the photo enhancement that I feel clearly shows a saucer shaped craft right in the crosshairs of the search lights. Doing that enhancement was very much like having a UFO sighting of my own. I was able to see something that was in the photo all the time but was hidden by the brightness of the poorly contrasted image.


Excellent! If you don't mind my asking, which analysis was yours, and could you explain what you did and which image you used? Please feel free to retain your anonymity if you choose, I'm really interested in the techniques used more than the identity of the person who did the work


That way, others can repeat your work, and repeatable testing showing the same results... well I'd call that Scientific Analysis indeed


By the way, thanks for pointing out the AA shells = the round things in the picture fact. I would have gotten to that also, but you beat me to it


I look forward to your comments in this thread!



posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 02:25 PM
link   
Still browsing through the excellent informations you provided and just wanted to thank you for it. Very good research of a classic case. If i could applaud you, i would, but for now - Flag and Star.



posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by LazyGuy
 


Amazing work LazyGuy, you're not so lazy after all

Thanks for tracking this down. We now know one location for one of the AA Batteries, Riverside, CA. I'll be looking into this further (as I hope you do too!) to try to pinpoint the exact location of the Riverside Battery, so that we can plot it on a map with the other batteries (once they are located, of course). This information is a part of American History, UFO or not, and should be on the record. It just takes a bit of work to find it. I'm glad you are helping LazyGuy, keep up the great work!

Here is a map showing Riverside in reference to the rest of Los Angeles and the Santa Monica Coastline, for reference:


Riverside is to the right of the image (not shown in ATS size cropping), please click on the map for the full image with Riverside listed.

Thanks everyone for your thoughts and ideas! Let's keep this ball rolling!



posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 02:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Phil J. Fry
 


You are very welcome Phil J. Fry. I've read many of your posts in other threads, and am very pleased to have you examining this data. I'm anxious to hear your thoughts, but I know it's a lot of info to dig through.

There are still so many pieces of info to acquire, I feel we're still a long way from real answers, but with folks like you weighing in on this issue, we're bound to get our answers



posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 02:41 PM
link   
here's a bofors gun of the time.

strangecorridor.blogspot.com...

And a searchlight.

www.geocities.com...


Anti-Aircraft Defenses, fixed and flexible mounts

www.ftmac.org...


Abandoned & Little-Known Airfields:

California - Central Los Angeles Area

contains some small maps of the areas in question
www.airfields-freeman.com...


Harbor Defenses of Los Angeles
www.militarymuseum.org...



[edit on 25-1-2008 by Extralien]



posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 02:42 PM
link   
It might be worthwhile to see if other images can be tracked down in the archives of some of the other newspapers that were in Los Angeles at the time, such as the Herald-Express, the Examiner, the Hollywood Citizen-News, as well as the Long Beach papers, since the path of the UFO was closer to Long Beach than Los Angeles.

From what I understand, most of the old archives are kept at the Los Angeles Public Library. I don't know if these would include photo prints, but they might be housed somewhere. Just a suggestion. I don't get downtown much, but somebody else might.



posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 03:37 PM
link   
All you have to do is look at the military record of the event. To this day it's listed as an unidentied flying object and they have no clue what it was.

It's one of the cases they're more open about because they can't deny it happened or make up some kind of stupid excuse. Way too many people saw this happen. There's no way to cover anything up. They just come out and admit it was a UFO, but they won't say it was alien in nature.



posted on Jan, 25 2008 @ 03:42 PM
link   
The peak you're looking for..I wonder if it is the one with Griffith Observatory?


salsadanza.tripod.com...

and just to help a bit more...


www.aerialimages.com...


www.coolantarctica.com...

[edit on 25-1-2008 by Extralien]

[edit on 25-1-2008 by Extralien]





top topics
 
88
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join