It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 27
<< 24  25  26   >>

log in


posted on Jul, 8 2011 @ 12:11 PM
reply to post by WitnessFromAfar

Well it's been a year since your last post Witness.....

Are you dead ???


posted on Jul, 8 2011 @ 12:15 PM

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by mcrom901

Only battery B of the 65th had an SCR 268 radar for gun laying.

the rest for searchlights?

posted on Jul, 9 2011 @ 03:54 AM

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Did you look near the top of page 24 of this thread? I posted the locations of 2 of the relevant launches there along with numerous other relevant details.

I only came in on what was then the end of this thread, in order to provide a link to a recent photo analysis of an untouched negative, which was a bit more recent than the last posting to this thread (i. e. was fairly confident that it was new info), so I haven't read through everything else on it yet (FTR: typically if I am interested in a thread, I will start at the beginning and wade my way through the whole thing -- particularly if it is about a specific case or item). I will make amends with this thread, I promise...

I am going to be lazy, short term here, and ask if there is a page on this thread that talks about wind conditions that night.
edit on 9-7-2011 by MrInquisitive because: Wanted to add something

posted on Jul, 9 2011 @ 04:07 AM

Originally posted by MrInquisitive

Originally posted by Arbitrageur

Did you look near the top of page 24 of this thread? I posted the locations of 2 of the relevant launches there along with numerous other relevant details.
I am going to be lazy, short term here, and ask if there is a page on this thread that talks about wind conditions that night.
The post I referred you to I believe mentions something about the balloon blowing "up the coast" which is somewhat of a reference to wind though it's not an exact heading.

posted on Jul, 9 2011 @ 04:28 AM

Originally posted by HazyChestNutz

Originally posted by MrInquisitive
Analysis of original Battle of LA photo negative

Seems the classic photo everyone is familiar with is not the original. Below is a link to an article about recent analysis of the original negative. The conclusions is that there is no aircraft of any sort, but rather a cloud or smoke at the nexus of the searchlight beams.

They noticed a moving cloud and started to shoot at it? And there were spotlights on the UFO. How is that logical to say that they were shooting at a cloud? They even said that the object moved off to the shores and disappeared out of nowhere.

"They" -- in this case an experience Navy observer with good binoculars -- also said that he saw nine silver planes. Why aren't you going with his observation, which clearly nullifies the ET UFO hypothesis? As far as witnesses back then go, I don't know if any of them used the term "UFO", and if they did, they meant it in the most formal sense, i.e. an Unidentified Flying Object. The notion that this was an ET UFO only came about years later.

A clouds do move. I've lived in the LA area and witnessed moving clouds. The fog can roll in too, just like in the movies.

The point about the cloud, which I was making, has to do with the picture. The searchlights are all aimed at a purported glowing nexus, which some contend is a ET UFO. This could be the underside of a cloud or the smoke from all the AA bursts. In the recent reanalysis of an original untouched negative (see my prior thread), there wasn't even much if any at all of this glowing patch in the sky at the nexus of the searchlight beams, which dispenses with the need of even a cloud to explain what was in the picture.

There is also the hypothesis that what was seen was one of these weather balloons sent up to determine the wind direction for the gunners.

As to what was seen moving out to sea again, who knows? Balloon, cloud, Japanese sub plane or -- if you prefer -- an ET craft. From all the different accounts of the "object", however, it is hard to take any observer at his/her word. Heck, it could have been a cloud of thick AA smoke drifting offshore.

posted on Jul, 9 2011 @ 06:49 AM
reply to post by Arbitrageur

Hmm, balloons floating "up the coast" is certainly not down towards Long Beach. I have to acknowledge that to Firemoon. But given the disparate descriptions of what was seen, I could still imagine clouds or smoke from the AA drifting offshore and being thought to be the object. It also could have been the path of the final AA firing, which lead some to think that the "object" went offshore.

Also from the report that Arbitrageur cites, on page 24 of this thread, some of the military witnesses may have been forced to say they saw a flight of planes, which muddies things further, if we can't take all eye witness accounts at face value.

posted on Jan, 25 2012 @ 03:21 AM
absolutely top thread !!!
s&f so i can come back later

posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 09:04 PM
reply to post by Arbitrageur

The only monkey wrench i can throw the balloon theory is that it would be able to move at 6mphs then dip on off. Meaning that if it was a weather balloon then it would have been consistently buffetted by the AA shockwaves. It's movement if any would have been erratic at best.

Even if the aim of the AA gunners did suck, they did use tracer rounds, so they had an idea of what area to shoot in as well.

The object wasn't moving, sitting duck for AA with tracer rounds. You correct your aim on the fly.

posted on Jun, 7 2012 @ 11:57 PM

off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


posted on Apr, 2 2015 @ 05:57 PM
What happened to this thread? I literally just read all 27 pages, and was quite sad to see how it ended up. Seems like after all the hard work Witness did he couldn't put up with the narrow mindedness of a few skeptics.

While I don't agree with everything he said, he was VERY detailed, AND open minded regarding everyone's theories even when they seemed to come from people who didn't even read 1% of the information he put out there.

This thread goes to show you how epic ATS can be, and at the same time soul crushing for people who are truly trying to deny ignorance.

Sorry Witness

posted on Apr, 3 2015 @ 08:18 AM
a reply to: c0gN1t1v3D1ss0nanC3

To be a truth warrior requires a strong heart.

Regardless of what others say on here, they can't change the facts of what happened.

Thousands of rounds of ammunition fired at an object that moved slowly over the city. The object did not appear to be damaged from this in any way, though rounds were observed exploding in close proximity to it.

Up to 25 "silvery" air ships were seen by observers on the ground. One person above stated they couldn't have been UFO's because one report described them as "planes". Well, remember this was 1942, five years even before Roswell, and the term "UFO" hadn't been coined yet. So people described the objects they saw that night as "silvery planes" and "balloons".

However -

1. No balloon could survive even one close AA hit, let alone thousands, I think we can rule out the balloon theory.

2. No planes existed at that time that could move so slowly, not did planes exist that could survive thousands of close proximity AA hits. Sure some planes could survive a couple of close calls, maybe while moving at high altitude at higher speeds. Nothing of that time could survive remaining in almost the same place for a 1/2 hour while over a thousands AA shells were fired at it. The picture shows the AA is very close to the object.

So, whatever it was, was it US? It is highly illogical that the US would fly anything secret over a major city and allowed it to be fired upon by real AA guns for over a 1/2 hr, given especially in 1942 the US had millions of acres of secret, desolate test ranges in Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, Alaska and who knows where else. And again, nothing of that time could survive such a prolonged AA bombardment.

Was it Japanese? Well, whatever it was, it was over the city for 1/2 an hour and didn't drop a single bomb. Not to mention that the Japanese had none of the technical capabilities outlined above which argued against it being US military, such as the ability to hover for such a long time or move so slowly, not to mention the most glaring fact of surviving a prolonged AA bombardment.

So, if you look at the facts of the case, it is most logical to say this craft or crafts were not human produced.

And again given the almost certainty this was non-human contact, we have more proof of media and government complicity of the cover-up, given that this incredible incident should be one of the most memorable events of WWII and should be still talked about today, and yet being a WWII buff for the last four decades (but not any more) I only found out about this incident over the last year? Everyone should know about this and talk about this, doesn't alien interaction with Earth have tremendous implications for us? Yet no one outside of places like ATS even knows about it.

Battle of LA image analysis

Multiple reports on the Battle of LA

Here is the original CBS news radio episode on the incident:

new topics

top topics

<< 24  25  26   >>

log in