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: 23
89
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 29 2009 @ 02:41 PM
link   
I sent a letter off to CUFON today, hopefully they can point us in the right direction in looking for the initial reports...

[September 29th, 2009


Attn: Dale Goudie - Information Director, Jim Klotz – SYSOP, and Chris Lambright – Webmaster

Subject: The Reports from which the History of the 4th AA Command, Western Defense Command, Jan 9 1942 to July 1 1945 (extract) was drawn from…

Dear Sirs,

On the 25th of February, 2004, CUFON released a .pdf version of the above referenced extract.

Upon a thorough reading of the report, I’ve noticed several footnotes, citing the initial reports from which this extract was drawn.

I’ve attempted to locate these initial reports online, to no avail.

Would you be so kind as to perhaps point me in the right direction, as to where these initial reports can be examined, and data beyond what is contained in the extract might be obtained?

Thank you very much for your time, and have a wonderful evening.


-Name Removed
Independent Researcher at AboveTopSecret.com
Username: WitnessFromAfar]



More to come as further information emerges...

-WFA




posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 02:11 PM
link   
I hope CUFON can help with the reports.

Sorry if this has already been posted, but it's a long thread and I don't recall seeing it, it's a youtube video of the incident, and all I know about the video is what's stated in on the youtube page. Is this a dramatization of some sort? I suspect it is, especially based on the flashes inserted at about 43 seconds, a discontinuous shot that suggests it may not be real footage. And the Caption only mentions a radio broadcast which of course would have no video.


If it's a real video I have no idea how they got some footage which appears to be shot from the air?



I stared at that famous picture so long looking at it with different filters etc, that it's nice to get a different view in this video of what happened.

[edit on 6-10-2009 by Arbitrageur]



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 02:15 PM
link   
The AA flak seems to be going everywhere but towards the target.



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 06:01 PM
link   





posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 06:11 PM
link   
reply to post by draknoir2
 


The AA guns aren't suppose to be precise.

...the same way depth charges work with submarines.



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 07:59 AM
link   
hello all , any more research on this ? thread seems to have died which seems a shame



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 10:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by draknoir2
The AA flak seems to be going everywhere but towards the target.



Originally posted by Tifozi
reply to post by draknoir2
 


The AA guns aren't suppose to be precise.

...the same way depth charges work with submarines.



Originally posted by gambon
hello all , any more research on this ? thread seems to have died which seems a shame


The case is pretty much solved for me, but there are only two mysteries about it that come to mind:

1. What was the offshore radar contact around 2-2:30am that was going a couple hundred MPH? We don't know and probably never will. But there's no evidence that was the object they were shooting at over LA because the shooting didn't start until the balloons were released at 3am. nd there was no radar tracking between 2:30 and 3am.

2. Why didn't the AA shoot down the balloons immediately? Both meteorological units reported that the AA fire was just making their balloons dance around in the sky. This is plausible if a shockwave from the AA explosion hit the balloon, but no shrapnel did. This raises questions about the quantity, size, and dispersal pattern of AA shrapnel and the distance the AA shells were detonated from the balloons, but as Tifozi said, they weren't intended to be direct hits. However i suspect that the AA shells were exploding even further from the target than expected.

To the people that say that if it was balloons they were shooting at, they would have been shot down immediately, I have to agree with that observation, as this would have been my expectation as well. But apparently I come to a different conclusion than some others. I conclude that it was in fact balloons they were shooting at, at least initially, and wonder why they weren't able to shoot them down. I think there are good answers to that question.

Other people seem to conclude that the balloons must be bulletproof to not be shot down by AA fire, and while I'm puzzled by this, I don't think the answer is that the balloons were bulletproof. I think the shockwave hit them, but the shrapnel didn't, if the meteorological balloon soldiers statements are accurate about what the AA fire did to the balloons.

Remember, we know that the radar training was found to be dismal, and the radar was used for aiming the AA fire, so if they had terrible radar training, then it seems possible their aim could be off and they wouldn't get close enough to the balloons to shoot them down with the first couple of shots. I suspect that eventually, the balloons were shot down, but that they withstood so many shots initially without being shot down is fascinating, especially since the shots were close enough to the balloons for the shock waves to knock the balloons around in the sky. Either that or it was some kind of optical illusion like autokinesis where their eyes told them the balloons were getting knocked around but it was just an optical effect from the explosion that they misinterpreted. But they were sure that those were the balloons they had released that were being shot at, and I don't see any reason to doubt that.



posted on May, 5 2010 @ 10:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


bullet proof balloons and optical illusions eh ?


it was a ufo and if you have never seen a real one then you'll always find ways to dismiss it. i am noticing that seems to be the norm for people who haven't seen the real thing. i could be wrong



posted on May, 6 2010 @ 02:43 AM
link   
reply to post by easynow
 


The January 2000 sighting in Illinois by multiple police officers was a real UFO, and I don't know what that was.

But the balloons being shot at initially in this case were clearly identified by the soldiers who released them. So that means they are not UFOs.

Whether I've ever seen a UFO or not won't change the facts in either of these cases. I still believe the police officers in 2000 when they said they saw a UFO just like I believe the soldiers in 1942 when they said they saw the balloon they released being shot at.



posted on May, 6 2010 @ 11:29 AM
link   
the officer s reaction , to " carry on shooting " is also intresting ...could this have been an effort to raise civilian morale that " we are ready for anything"

the launched ballons actually being the intended target all along...

I am of the opinion the ballons where to high for any of the aa guns firing at the time imo



posted on May, 6 2010 @ 10:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by gambon
I am of the opinion the ballons where to high for any of the aa guns firing at the time imo
I think that's a possibility, since the maximum altitude of the balloon is greater than the maximum altitude the AA shells were capable of reaching.

However I hesitate to conclude that it's more than just a possibility for several reasons.

First there would be a period immediately after the balloons were released while they were still ascending that they would be within the range of the AA guns, and I wasn't able to pin down the timing of the firing versus the exact timing of the balloon release ascent rate accurately enough to resolve that question.

Second, I'm still intrigued by the soldiers' statement that the shell explosions were actually knocking the balloons around (when apparently the shock wave hit the balloon, but no shrapnel). Whether this perception is accurate or not is questionable but it seems possible, and if it's true, it would suggest that the balloons couldn't have been too far away from the shells when they exploded.



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 10:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


"First there would be a period immediately after the balloons were released while they were still ascending that they would be within the range of the AA guns"

I do agree with you , although the above would depend on the location the balloons were launched , the minimum gun angle and still the range at these low angle firings?if that makes sense , could the hills have covered the balloon untill it was fairly high for instance ?

How far was the launch site along the ground as the crow flies to the aa batts , searchlights?

I think the sonic boom / heat from multiple exploding ammunitions " could " produce this effect , much like a piece of litter over a fire , or near a car exhaust for instance


[edit on 10-5-2010 by gambon]



posted on May, 10 2010 @ 10:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


Don't you think the Army might have released the balloons as a distraction to keep people's minds off the real object?

This is supposedly what happened with the Phoenix lights in 1997. The lights themselves were flares, but were meant to distract everyone's attention from the large V-shaped flying object flying slowly over the area.

www.abovetopsecret.com...



posted on May, 11 2010 @ 12:06 AM
link   
reply to post by sos37
 

I agree the flares in Phoenix in 1997 may have been such a distraction. I'm not sure they were but it seems plausible as a possibility.

In 1942 I don't think the balloons were a distraction, it doesn't even seem plausible.

www.nicap.org...


Accompanying documentation showed that weather balloon releases were scheduled daily for 0300Z, 0900Z, 1500Z, and 2100Z.


So they released the balloons EVERY DAY at 3am, it was part of a regular daily schedule of balloon releases.



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 07:12 AM
link   
How dark would it be at 3 am on the date in q including weather conditions?
In california?



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 01:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by gambon
How dark would it be at 3 am on the date in q including weather conditions?
In california?

You inspired me to look up the moon data, it set at 2:31 AM about half an hour before the shooting started on Feb 25 1942:

www.heavens-above.com...

Since the 1990s I've flown into the Los Angeles basin numerous times at night and I can say it's never very dark, as viewed from the air, the lights extend literally from the Pacific ocean on the West to the mountains east of Los Angeles. I imagine the city was normally well lit in 1942 also, at ground level.

However once the "lights out" was declared, the city went dark, since they thought the Japanese would find it hard to hit their bombing targets at night if they couldn't see them. And since the moon had set and all the lights were out, it might have been dark for a change.

But I'm not sure why you're asking, the weather balloons had their own light so you could see that even in the dark. And that's what they started shooting at according to the guys who released the weather balloons.



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 02:03 PM
link   
Just a general enquiry really , I was wondering to the brightness of the balloon light which it has been stated was visible,lighting the underside , to that of the surrounding area, eg with the light of the city on the balloon was less visible , than with them off , if a full moon for instance this may not have been the case
so at moon set / blackout they would suddenly stand out from the night sky
?



posted on May, 16 2010 @ 02:39 PM
link   
reply to post by gambon
 


My guess is the brightness of the light on the weather balloon would be something comparable to a simple Chinese sky lantern brightness, so it would be visible even with the city lights on.

But yes, once the city lights went out, and the moon had set, the balloon light would have really stood out.



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 12:39 PM
link   
From what I have read...eye witness testimonies....

This or these where no balloons....


FACT: Several rounds of AA fire were seen hitting the object/objects and delivering their explosive payload after making contact with these objects...

The firing was testified to happen over a period of 1hour 2 minutes....
ANYTHING that was in the air at that time AND MOVING THAT SLOW-WOULD HAVE BEEN SHOT DOWN!!

Direct hits have been confirmed in countless testimonies...

Varying stories from military and government...lead me to believe that this was NO balloon...

Not saying what it is...Just saying what it isn't


You'd think this would be the biggest news ever; especially at the time. Confirmed visual sighting by huge Spot lights, AA fire over U.S soil, countless testimonies.... yet somehow it basically fell of the radar with very little time....


IMHO this story was FAR bigger and better than Roswell....



[edit on 17-5-2010 by Software_Pyrate]



posted on May, 17 2010 @ 12:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Software_Pyrate
 


There were many eyewitness accounts claiming many different things. Some of them contradict others so they can't all be right.

The reason the eyewitness accounts saying they started shooting at balloons have more credibility to me than any other eyewitness account, is that those came from the guys who released the balloons, so they were the only people that whole night who knew for sure exactly what they were looking at.

None of the other witnesses can make that claim, because none of the other witnesses released what they saw.



new topics

top topics



 
89
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join