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.

 

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

page: 22
89
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 03:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
reply to post by yeti101
 

In order to go with the balloon theory, you have to be willing to believe something like this:


Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 

I do believe that initial fire may have been directed at a balloon. I believe the subsequent fire was directed at nothing but smoke and searchlight beams.




You would also have to believe that the Radar Returns from 4 separate radar units were all false reads.

Remember, no enemy planes were shot down, and no bombs were dropped...

So what exactly was the Solid object in the sky that evening (possibly more than one solid object)?

The Balloon was not launched until around 3am, first radar contact happened at 01:44. In fact, the Regional Controller's Radar Op had already tracked a moving object for a reported 21 minutes before the Balloon was even launched, to within 3 miles of the Coastline. The Regional Controller in response to this radar data, ordered a blackout, etc.

So with respect Arby, when all of the data from this case is included, the Balloon theory doesn't fit with the observed evidence.

If all there was in the sky were US Army Balloons, we wouldn't find 4 separate radar units delivering evidence of a solid moving object in the sky well over an hour before the first US Army Balloon was launched.

-WFA




posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 05:04 PM
link   
reply to post by WitnessFromAfar
 


WFA im sorry i upset you earlier sometimes i can have an unfortunate manner.


You would also have to believe that the Radar Returns from 4 separate radar units were all false reads.

i think its interesting the way you think about this technology. These operators are looking at an oscilloscope with a horiozontal line that represents time, they have varying peaks & troughs on the display all the time due to natural atmospheric distortion and these are amplified by the long wavelengths they were using. Now thats without anything else like turbulence or temp inversions.

All the stations are looking through the same atmospheric conditions so any change in the peaks & troughs will be displayed on all oscilloscopes. Yes i think its possible all operators saw a change in the peaks & troughs which perhaps looked out of the ordinary. I also think its possible it was nothing more than misreads of natural return data by the operators. Hightened tension they were on green alert, pearl harbor just happened etc

also the word "fair" doesnt fill me with confidence. Its not good, very good or excellent. Its fair and thats their own descripton. Mr watt didnt have one good word to say about the signal corps and theyre radar operation.

It would be interesting if we had the raw data from each station but we dont. Its also natural for them to cover their asses in their reports for triggering the mayhem. A sketchy return suddenly becomes "well tracked" when your explaining yourself to your boss.

Its too easy for the skeptic to say it was over zealous operators given the circumstances.


[edit on 22-9-2009 by yeti101]



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 06:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by WitnessFromAfar
So what exactly was the Solid object in the sky that evening (possibly more than one solid object)?

The Balloon was not launched until around 3am, first radar contact happened at 01:44.


Does it really matter what radar saw before 2:30am? In my analysis it doesn't matter if it was a false return, a real solid object or what have you. They lost track of it (whatever it was) after 2:28am right?

There's no reason for me to think anything they shot at after 3am had anything to do with the signals they got on radar before 2:28am.

If you were talking about some shooting that occurred between 2:00am-2:27 am, then I could at least understand your point as they claim to have tracked something on radar at that time. But as we know they weren't shooting at anything during that time.

The only relevance the radar contacts have to me is that I know that's what triggered the alarm after 2am resulting in the blackout. I don't see any connection whatsoever between the radar contacts from 2:00-2:27, and the shooting that started just after 3am. Others are welcome to interpret the facts differently if they choose but that's my interpretation.



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 07:13 PM
link   
reply to post by WitnessFromAfar
 


Hello WFA, thought i would check-out your BOLA thread, i have to say i am impressed with your work.
Those that persist are destined to succeed!
I would like to offer my thoughts on the subject after i have gone through your ever expanding case-file.
I have only briefly flicked through so-far, but it seems to me that all the talk is of Japan.
Where is Germany? Scientific and Technical leader of the world at the time?
There is also the possibility of testing public reaction to a bomber attack.
What is interesting to me is that LA actually had radar and AA guns in 1942.
Long range bombers were out of the question and yet we have these systems in place.
That aside, the image definately shows a solid object subjected to a large amount of AA that would blow the wings off conventional aircrft.
Persist/Peace.



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 07:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage

Understanding the spikes on the oscilloscope required interpretation. I think it's entirely possible that the radar operators were fooled and did not have a true track on an actual object (or it could even have been the seaplane from the sub, remember; approximate distance, and therefore speed).


I saw your edit there just now, and I just wanted to comment, I agree this is a possibility. General Finckel (in the CUFON report..) didn't think it was likely though. He listed the Japanese Sub-launched plane in his list of possible theories in this way:

[3. Japanese Submarine-launched planes were over the city. Height reported of 20,000 feet however, did not fit such a theory.]

General DeWitt didn't seem to think it was the likeliest explanation either:
[While it is possible that these airplanes were launched from Japanese submarines, it is more likely that they were civilian or commercial planes, operated by unauthorized pilots.] He then goes on to request assistance in locating these 'unidentified' planes, which never actually surface.

To be fair, DeWitt then in a march 7th phone conversation with Major General AD Surles does proffer the Sub-Launched plane theory as his best guess (against his earlier altitude assessment). He definitively states in that same conversation:

[One to five but most probably three planes appeared over Beverly Hills at an elevation of about 18,000 feet, flying very slowly. They were picked up by the searchlights and followed through to Long Beach and then to sea. We know they did not come from Mexico, at least I am assured by General Cardenas, whom I immediately communicated with, that they did not come from either Baja California, Sinaloa or Sonora. He is definite in his statements to me. We know that there were no Army planes...no Navy planes, Coast Guard, and civilian planes--CAA planes...We are still checking through Nevada and Arizona, the FBI and the Governors of the States, as well as are our own troops. But I am certain nothing will be found..."



Originally posted by Phage
It doesn't really seem that the Army Air Force was very impressed by the reports either, they didn't launch any interceptors. If there was a solid contact with a solid track, why not? Especially after what happened at Pearl Harbor. Did you learn anything about what happened on Oahu on March 7, 1942? The only thing done in Los Angeles was that a blackout was declared. As I've pointed out before, there were numerous blackouts declared based on false contacts. Radar was unreliable, the operators were unreliable, false alarms were rampant.


First quick note - It happened in Oahu on Feb. 23rd, it was reported in a phone call on March 7th...

My main argument with this paragraph is that it was not simply a blackout that was ordered.

From the CUFON .pdf:


[All AA gunners were alerted at 02:15 and between 02:21 and 02:32 were put on Green Alert, status #1.]

[Major Milton E Durham, of LA Wing; his account is quoted in History of Los Angeles Fighter Wing, p 12-13. he says the Blue Alert was ordered at 02:15, a Red Alert at 02:23 "as the target approached from the Santa Maria area, still well tracked"; that the AA was put on Green Alert, Condition 1 by the Controller and "the tactical defense turned over to the antiaircraft" as no fighters were sent up. immediately "the air over Los Angeles erupted like a volcano..."]

Major Durham's report is where 'the air over Los Angeles erupted like a volcano..." came from, and I thought it would be appropriate to place it in context. Of note, Major Durham's report places the beginning of the Anti-Aircraft fire immediately after the the AA is put on Green Alert, Condition 1. That order came down at 02:21 with the duration of the fire lasting until 02:32. The 'Balloon' shooting after 03:00 was not the initial firing of the AA guns, according to Major Durham...

The 37th Brig (S-3 in the footnotes) cites that the blackout was ordered at 02:37, slightly later than the Regional commander's notes at 02:21, but possibly explaining the 21-27 minute discrepancy we were discussing above...

[At 03:06 a balloon carrying a red flare was reported over Santa Monica and firing on it by batteries B, C and D of the 65th CA and B of the 205th CA began at 03:07 on orders of the Controller to destroy it.]

Note, the two separate entries in the CUFON report for two separate incidences of gunfire...

In fact, again in Santa Monica...
[At 03:55 batteries C and D of the 65th fired 100 rounds of 3" at another balloon over Santa Monica. Ten minutes later batteries B, C and D of the 78th opened up again on another target over Long Beach and fired 246 rounds of 3" before the target passed out to sea.]

Arby, here is some more data for you regarding the Balloon shooting:

[Colonel Watson of the 203rd CA at 03:00 saw a balloon but discovered the meteorological laboratory had sent up a ballon and hence ordered the units of his command to hold their fire. He saw no planes.]

[Capt Molder of the 203rd CA saw lights pick up a meterological ballong at 03:00 and firing commenced upon it at a height of 8-9000 feet.]

[Captain Cohen of the 214th CA identified the balloon as a meteorological one when it was illuminated by the searchlights; two SCR 268's did not pick it up although they searched.]

Those two SCR 268's were in the command of Captain Bailey...
[Captain Bailey of the 214th CA searched with his SCR 268's at the intersection of the searchlight but got nothing.]

Note the same company 214th CA in Santa Monica, they could not get a radar hit on the Balloon.


Another thing I found interesting from this section of the CUFON .pdf, was the report from Ernie Pyles:
[Ernie Pyles' column of 5 March added his but; he had seen no target but had enjoyed the display of searchlight and shellbursts and the way the searchlights held the target unswervingly right across the sky.]

Ernie's column was in the Los Angeles Times...

-WFA



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 07:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Arby - it looks like we were typing about the same thing at the same time LOL

Please see my above post, as it addresses what you were writing at the same time.

Arby wrote -
"If you were talking about some shooting that occurred between 2:00am-2:27 am, then I could at least understand your point as they claim to have tracked something on radar at that time. But as we know they weren't shooting at anything during that time."

I'll wait for you to respond before trying to post again, so we don't do it again LOL...

but it seems that they were shooting at that time, from the CUFON report...

-WFA


[edit on 22-9-2009 by WitnessFromAfar]



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 07:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by yeti101
WFA im sorry i upset you earlier sometimes i can have an unfortunate manner.


I can as well. Let's agree to be nicer to one another. Thanks for reaching out, that takes guts.


Originally posted by yeti101
It would be interesting if we had the raw data from each station but we dont. Its also natural for them to cover their asses in their reports for triggering the mayhem. A sketchy return suddenly becomes "well tracked" when your explaining yourself to your boss.


While I can understand this rational, we don't actually have the raw data yet, and I for one am not done looking



Originally posted by yeti101
Its too easy for the skeptic to say it was over zealous operators given the circumstances.


I know that you didn't mean this sentence this way, but isolated it gives a new meaning. it IS too easy for the skeptic to say it was over zealous operators given the circumstances. I as a skeptic with an inquisitive mind just can't take the easy way out. We go about things a bit differently, you and I, that's okay. But one thing about me is that I'm never satisfied with 'unknown', especially when the raw data must have existed at some point (in order to be cited in the footnotes of the CUFON report...).

How about you and I work together on a side investigation here, to specifically locate any/all documents cited within the CUFON report...

We can agree I assume to put our speculations on what might be found within those initial reports on hold until the reports are located here in the thread?

I can guarantee that I'll keep investigating until they turn up, even if it takes another 40 years, and I'm working with a 100+ year declassification law version of FOIA LOL...

-WFA



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 07:46 PM
link   
reply to post by WitnessFromAfar
 
OK if Major Durham's report is true about firing from 2:21 until 2:32, then replace what I said before about 2:27am with 2:32 am.

So that makes the gap 28 minutes instead of 33 minutes, it's still roughly a half hour gap.

That's excellent detail you provided on all the timing of the different batteries, I looked for that before and didn't find it, great find WFA!! starred!



[edit on 22-9-2009 by Arbitrageur]



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 07:55 PM
link   
reply to post by yeti101
 

I was referring to the seaplane as a possibility for the off shore radar contact.

Sorry, my comment about Oahu was poorly written and very confusing. I wasn't making a connection with LA. My point was in wondering why, if the off shore contact really was a good solid contact, no interceptors were launched. I was trying to use Oahu as an example of how quickly interceptors should have been deployed.

On March 4, 1942 there was an attempted attack on Oahu by two Japanese flying boats. Three days later a false alarm generated by a radar contact by the army created a lot of ruckus on Oahu, including an immediate launch of interceptors. It was in full daylight but even then things got pretty far out of hand. It seems that Los Angeles was not the only place where the army was jumpy and took quite a bit of heat for it (especially from the Navy).
books.google.com...#



[edit on 9/22/2009 by Phage]



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 07:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
reply to post by WitnessFromAfar
 
OK if Major Durham's report is true about firing from 2:21 until 2:32, then replace what i said before about 2:27am with 2:32 am.

So that makes the gap 28 minutes instead of 33 minutes, it's still roughly a half hour gap.


What I was trying to point out, is that it was in fact 2 different events. I do not dispute your analysis of the 03:00 shooting at the balloon.

I only point out that when I say that the AA guns fired on the object tracked by Radar, it's because I read it in the CUFON report. They did fire on it, from 02:21 until 02:32 at the very least. Further incidences of shooting were posted chronologically in that CUFON report, and were possibly altogether unrelated.

Several later entries are there, one detailing the Balloon shooting at around 03:00, and another at another balloon at around 03:55 am...

So what I'm saying is that the folks in the 214 in Santa Monica could well have been shooting at a balloon, you may well be right, it seems that way to me.

But the folks down in Long Beach were firing at the object tracked on Radar, and there was no time gap between the Green Alert Condition 1 (which signified control of the situation by AA, and that no US planes were in the air) and the time that the initial firing started...

hope that makes sense. Boy it was confusing to sort out!


-WFA



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 07:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by yeti101
 

I was referring to the seaplane as a possibility for the off shore radar contact.

Sorry, my comment about Oahu was poorly written and very confusing. I wasn't making a connection with LA. My point was in wondering why, if the off shore contact really was a good solid contact, no interceptors were launched. I was trying to use Oahu as an example of how quickly interceptors should have been deployed.

On March 4, 1942 there was an attempted attack on Oahu by two Japanese flying boats. Three days later a false alarm generated by a radar contact by the army created a lot of ruckus on Oahu, including an immediate launch of interceptors. It was in full daylight but even then things got pretty far out of hand. It seems that Los Angeles was not the only place where the army was jumpy and took quite a bit of heat for it (especially from the Navy).
books.google.com...#



[edit on 9/22/2009 by Phage]


phage - boy were we both miscommunicating LOL. I thought you meant the sub launched plane flyby at Oahu on the 23rd of February.

I had not heard of the march 4th event, I'll check it out. Sorry for the misread, and for the mis-reply!

-WFA



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 08:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
Sorry, my comment about Oahu was poorly written and very confusing. I wasn't making a connection with LA. My point was in wondering why, if the off shore contact really was a good solid contact, no interceptors were launched.
[edit on 9/22/2009 by Phage]


I just did a quick read there, and wow that IS interesting! Thanks for posting that link Phage


From the summary read (I could be wrong) it appears to me that in Oahu they had fighters on standby, and they were easy to put up in the air, whereas their AA guns were still in their protective covers, unloaded.

Faster response time with the Interceptors, so they went that way...

In the LA event, General DeWitt (very defensively from the reading...) explains the decision to not send up Interceptors in this way:

["The question has been asked several times why the pursuits were not sent up. The reason was that we didn't have much pursuit--we had 15 planes in three different places---a total of 45; if that was a reconnaissance preceding a carrier...we did not want to have our pursuit in the air, half out of gas when the attack came in. We didn't want to take the chance. The pursuit was alerted, the pilots were in their planes, their engines were warm and their propellers turning, already to take off to intercept any attack that would possibly have followed the reconnaissance...The bombers were alerted, warmed up, crews in planes, ready to go in search for the carrier if the attack should materialize. That's why no planes were sent up. It was a fine tactical decision. General Fickel was there at the time and so was my antiaircraft Officer, Colonel Murphy, and the decision was made by Colonel Israel, which I think was correct...."]

So in essence, they made a command decision to leave the assumed 'raiders' to the AA guns, and to keep their planes on standby to deal with an incoming aircraft carrier or possible fleet...

-WFA

The above text came from the often cited CUFON report...

edited to fix spelling in quote...

[edit on 22-9-2009 by WitnessFromAfar]



posted on Sep, 22 2009 @ 09:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by WitnessFromAfar
hope that makes sense. Boy it was confusing to sort out!


-WFA


Yes that does make sense and if I understand it correctly it's good to see the acknowledgment that at least some of the batteries were firing at balloons. But I learned something from you if that report is true about the firing from 2:21-3:32am, I didn't know that before! (I haven't attempted to research if that report is verified by anyone else but right now I don't have any reason to doubt it).



posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 01:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Arby, I'm glad we're on the same page now. I re-read some of our recent posts, and I think that we were operating under a mis-understanding, where you thought I was arguing against your analysis of the Balloon shooting approx 03:00, and I thought you were arguing against the Object shooting after the Condition #1 Code Green was issued...

In reality, neither of us was arguing against each other, we were both accurately assessing separate events that happened about a half an hour apart.

Glad that's cleared up


By the way, your analysis was excellent and I absolutely was able to find further corroborating data to support that analysis. That deserves a moment of Congratulations!


I think I'm going to go back into looking for the initial reports that went into the CUFON report today, that seems like the next place that we're likely to find good data relevant to our current discussion.

Your thoughts Arby?

-WFA



posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 07:14 PM
link   
i still need/would like a photo of the rolling hills near/in la? looking south west to the coast please...



posted on Sep, 23 2009 @ 08:19 PM
link   
reply to post by gambon
 


Certainly Gambon, this is a big thread, and I'm not surprised that you overlooked the post. It is here:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

The full 'Search for the location of the LA Times Photographer' can be followed pretty much link by link, using the index I put together on Page 19 of this thread, in this post:
www.abovetopsecret.com...


And here is the image you requested, without the million posts of searching




And here is the location of the LA Times Photographer plotted, with a rough sight angle drawn in (estimate...):



Hope that helps!


-WFA



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 09:53 AM
link   
General DeWitt:


We didn't want to take the chance. The pursuit was alerted, the pilots were in their planes, their engines were warm and their propellers turning, already to take off to intercept any attack that would possibly have followed the reconnaissance...The bombers were alerted, warmed up, crews in planes, ready to go in search for the carrier if the attack should materialize. That's why no planes were sent up. It was a fine tactical decision.


It's because of reports like this that I don't accept lightly the claims that the radar operators (and the HQ) were in panic during the BoLA case.

Here you have a situation where they BELIEVE they are going to be attacked, and yet, they take the decision of standing down and wait for the real attack, so a correct and effective response can be made.

Does this add up with the claims of a "horrible" situation about the function of radars and the all-around AA systems? IMO, no. At all.

I have some experience regarding "official situation reports", and many of them don't even state the truth.

When I was in a plane with radar, I spent a few minutes playing around with it, and after that, I understand pretty much how it worked and how to read it, and adding my formation, I was able to use it properly.

I seriously doubt that radar operators, with (let's make it WEEKS) weeks of training, during a time of war, after a terrible attack, wouldn't be professional enough to detect "real" objects in the air.

What it was, is an entirely different discussion. But I don't doubt their capability.

When you are searching something with the radar, you have 3 points.

A, B and C.

B is the target, you detect it and record its position. You then go to point C, and A to see how big the object is from the angle you're viewing.

What this means? That A and C are void readings, they don't have anything, so you know the extent of B.

A scenario like the BoLA where the object (B) was tracked, means that they were keeping up with movement... They weren't simply reading a huge signal (like a thermal inversion).

2 cents..



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 10:48 AM
link   
This morning I received a response to my FOIA request.

My request has been forwarded to the proper agency, and I will update further on this when I get a response from that agency.

Here is the response I received today:


-WFA



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 11:13 AM
link   
reply to post by WitnessFromAfar
 
Good stuff Tifozi and WFA, as you know I've been busy with Kecksburg research right now.

I find it interesting that they actually forwarded your FOIA request!!! I thought the bureaucrats would tell you to send a new request to the other office yourself, I'm impressed THEY actually sent it!

Let's see what happens to that now!



posted on Sep, 24 2009 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
I find it interesting that they actually forwarded your FOIA request!!! I thought the bureaucrats would tell you to send a new request to the other office yourself, I'm impressed THEY actually sent it!


I'm pretty impressed too. In fact, speaking of impressed, did you notice the Recycled Paper stamp on the official DoD Doc???

I'm impressed.


I think it's a bit wierd that in this modern era, we're still typing on official letterhead, then printing, then scanning that print to .pdf in order to attach it as an electronic doc LOL...

But I must say that I'm impressed that she went to that much trouble, and still forwarded my request along to the proper dept...

Perhaps she'd like to see those docs declassified too... [Speculation Tag
]

It's likely that the hard copy of her reply was filed in her office with a hard copy of my original request, she seems quite diligent.

...And Recycled Paper used at the DoD... Who'd have guessed that?

-WFA




top topics



 
89
<< 19  20  21    23  24  25 >>

log in

join