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.


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

page: 9
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in


posted on May, 15 2008 @ 04:43 PM
this is one of my all time favorite cases because it is so damn hard for them to try and brush it away like the rest.

This is the one case that even the hardest skeptics have trouble discounting.

posted on May, 15 2008 @ 05:11 PM
reply to post by WitnessFromAfar

To recreate the original LA Times Photograph, now I just need to find a building in the area where I can get to the roof to take the picture.

A lot of buildings have risen since 1942, and I need to get visually above those in order to capture what the LA Times photographer was seeing.

I'm working on this, and I've gained regular access to a building in the area (my night job is located there, and it isn't a co-incidence )

This is seriously outstanding work WFA!

Admins and mods give this guy another applause

I have been a member of ATS for nearly two years and this is one of the most outstanding efforts I have seen. I'll continue to look for more interesting tid bits on the BOLA as time allows. Again, outstanding job WFA.

posted on May, 15 2008 @ 05:28 PM
Well thank you very much Scramjet, and Nephra Tari also.
It's nice when people notice the small details

I've noticed that many skeptics won't take this case on specifically because they doubt their ability to disprove the case in the face of the apparent evidence.

I have to give props to Nohup, the single true skeptic that has come into this thread time and again with not only respect, but with valid and pertinent questions, and with viable (at least at first, until subjected to the evidence) theories to the contrary.

Besides Nohup, I've yet to see anyone even attempt to make the case that this was anything other than an craft from another world, and have their theory fit with the evidence of the case.

Thanks for noticing! It's good to know that there are people out there watching this thread. Lights a fire under my butt to get out in the field again

I'll see what I can do over the weekend in this investigation.
If anyone else comes up with new data (or a new fact gleaned from the already available data, such as the speed of the object illustrated by Scramjet above) please post it!


posted on May, 15 2008 @ 06:02 PM

Originally posted by NephraTari
This is the one case that even the hardest skeptics have trouble discounting.

Discounting as what, exactly? That a bunch of nervous AA guys blasted away at "something" for a while, which was described in a lot of different ways, and that it supposedly drifted off, and that they have, oh, nothing to show for it afterwards than a lot of shell fragments and stories?

Of course that can't be discounted. Whoopee. A bunch of guys shot at something. Glad that makes you so happy.

posted on May, 16 2008 @ 09:29 AM
reply to post by Nohup

Well my favorite sparring partner
You and I both know there is a little more too the 'story' than that.

We know that a solid object was involved, due to the multiple radar returns and what can be gleaned from the analysis of the LA Times Photo. As Scramjet illustrated nicely, Dr. Maccabee and I both arrived at similar conclusions independently, and the results argue strongly against the 'illusion of fog and smoke' theory.

I'll skip a bunch of other details that we both know, but anyone reading the thread can easily gather them for themselves.

The point is, that nothing Humans built at the time (or that has been declassified in the 60+ years since the event) could have withstood such a beating.

There is a real mystery here. And it's one that the usual conventional explanations don't seem to solve. This wasn't a weather balloon, or swamp gas. It wasn't a temperature inversion or Venus. It wasn't a bird, or a balloon with a flare tied to it. It was not a chinese lantern. It wasn't a Japanese plane, nor an American one. It was not an Airship (in the blimp sense of the word). etc. etc. etc. ad infinitum

I'm pretty sure that's what NephraTari was attempting to convey, that the 'usual suspects' are clearly not the answer to this mystery. And without a list of the 'usual suspects' to fall back on, we see the true skeptical inquisitive minds step to the forefront.

Like yours Nohup

Don't be too hard on the girl now.


posted on May, 16 2008 @ 02:08 PM
reply to post by Nohup

well although you put it so eloquently.. lol... but we do need skeptics like you around. There is only one other explanation in my opinion.
They fired at a solid object with LIVE rounds for a long time without doing it any damage whatsoever and the craft did not return fire but just left casually when it wanted to.

There is actual live film footage from part of the time it was being tracked and fired on and it was covered in the LA times.

I do not believe there has ever been another UFO sighting that was televised nationally as this was. The military later claimed that this was "of course" a weather balloon. Which can only mean 1. They are total liars because there is no balloon that is going to take that kind of artillery without damage or 2. They did this as an orchestrated hoax of their own making to confuse the public.

posted on May, 16 2008 @ 02:33 PM
reply to post by NephraTari

Excellent points NephraTari. I'd also like to mention that due to the speed we know it was travelling (acquired from the comparison of radar returns cross-referenced with timestamps and location values) it could not have been a weather balloon, or any sort of balloon that rides the winds.

If so, the winds would have to have been travelling at over 300 miles per hour. Such winds surely would have been documented in the newspapers from the area. I've checked them all now (I believe) and there are no references to such winds.

I'm also having trouble believing it was a craft of Human making, seeing as how nothing built at the time (this is speaking from the standpoint of 60+ years down the road, where any classified aircraft would now be common knowledge at least to US Civilians) could withstand such a direct assault. Also, nothing made at the time (other than Airships, which couldn't stand up to a single flak shell) could hover in one spot against moving winds for up to a half an hour (some estimates state longer).


[edit on 16-5-2008 by WitnessFromAfar]

posted on May, 26 2008 @ 01:58 AM
I have just witnessed a brilliant thread, respect.

A weather balloon

A few questions if I may WFA -

1. How is your inquest going??? (great work so far)
2. Is the photo of all the spotlights, the ufo and the exploding shells
100% genuine?
3. How many witnesses from up close or afar have you spoken with? or how many do you know of?

This unsolved mystery/cover up would have to be the most intriguing I have come across regarding ufos, largely due to the presentation, dedication and poise shown in this thread


posted on May, 27 2008 @ 10:25 AM
Good morning Vehemes! Thanks for your post, and for your kind U2U.
This investigation is still ongoing, although as a single part time researcher it has taken me some time to get to this point. But I'm very excited about the state of the investigation currently, as we're nearing a 'breaking point' where one piece of information I've been tracking down (the location of the LA Times Photographer) will allow us to determine MANY other values pertinent to this case that have until now remained unsolved for.

The value that interests me the most, is the size of the craft in the picture.
But like most investigations (In my experience) you don't really know what you'll learn until you plug in all of the numbers, and I'm fairly sure that there will be some other interesting results once we're able to do that.

Originally posted by vehemes terra eternus
I have just witnessed a brilliant thread, respect.

A weather balloon

Thank you, and I completely understand your frustration.

Originally posted by vehemes terra eternus
A few questions if I may WFA -

1. How is your inquest going??? (great work so far)

I hope I answered that first one above, but here are the specifics.
I've located the mountain range in question, and have visually confirmed (to my own satisfaction) using the original LA Times photo for comparison, that I've got the right location down.

Next I need to determine the proper angle (looking at the mountain range) where the original photo was taken from.

I believe I've done that also, but need to take a photo from this spot to compare against the original.

The problem in taking this photo, is that Los Angeles has grown up quite a bit in the 60 years since the event, and there are houses in the way now (if I were to stand where the original photographer was standing). But luckily the buildings in the area are only 1 story buildings.

So I've now gained access to a building in approximately the right place (I got a job there, and as a side note it's turning out to be a really good job). I've since tried to gain access to the roof of the building, but haven't been successful.

At some point, if needed, I'll bring a ladder there and just go up to the roof that way, but I'm convinced there is a way up from inside the building, and I'm still looking for it. The company I'm working for in the building won't have full access to the building (we're just in a small part in the back right now) until mid June. So I'm sort of being patient and waiting for the right time to get up there and get my comparison picture.

It's frustrating to have to wait, but I've done a lot of preparation work in order to get this photo, and I don't want to blow all of that work by rushing now at the end

No worries though, this case is #1 in my book, and my investigation will continue until we have our answers.
And you can be sure that I'll post about it here when I do!

Originally posted by vehemes terra eternus
2. Is the photo of all the spotlights, the ufo and the exploding shells
100% genuine?

Yes, I personally located several places where the photo had been certified (both by independent investigatory researchers and ATS members). I then contacted the LA Times directly, and they confirmed the picture's validity. I also went to the LA Public Library down on 5th St., and confirmed the original newpaper from the date in question, and that the image was the same.

Additionally, the images posted online are scans (some are copies of copies) of the original, so not all of them will give you the picture quality needed for a good analysis.

Frank Warren, an ATS Member and fellow researcher into the BOLA case, reportedly has the original photograph now. Frank has offered to send me a high resolution scan of the original for comparison against the photo I'm currently trying to take. Once I acquire my image, I'll certainly be following up with Frank for comparison against the original (or at the very least a high res scan).

Also, in attempting to recreate the photo, I checked out the details regarding the rumored location of the cameraman. There was a lot of bad info in those rumors, but one turned out to be fairly accurate. That description places the object over Culver City, and the photographer at approximately Jefferson & La Cienega (although I think he was closer to Adams & Fairfax).

Originally posted by vehemes terra eternus
3. How many witnesses from up close or afar have you spoken with? or how many do you know of?

Sadly, I only know of 1 living witness, and I've not been able to contact him directly. He was interviewed recently (I think it was 2002) here:

That article is referenced as [N-36] in the sourcing found in the first page of this thread.

I have directly spoken with many researchers into this case, but sadly have not come across any eyewitnesses that I can interview directly. There IS much in the way of eye-witness testimony to be found in the reporting from 1942 in the newspapers local to the LA area. Following the links posted in the bibliography section of this thread will help you find those reports

Originally posted by vehemes terra eternus
This unsolved mystery/cover up would have to be the most intriguing I have come across regarding ufos, largely due to the presentation, dedication and poise shown in this thread


Well thank you very much for those kinds words. If you have any questions or aspects of this case that you would like to see followed up on (that haven't been addressed so far in the thread) please let me know and I'll look into it

I hope to have more to post in this thread soon...


posted on Jul, 7 2008 @ 01:09 PM
Found this section of a C2C interview with David Sereda.

In this section he talks about the UFO at BOLA. He describes how it may be possible that the craft was operating on a higher frequency, which basically means it wasn't in a solid state although looked solid.

You might want to listen to the whole series here, it's in 12 parts, but this sectionmentions BOLA UFO

posted on Jul, 15 2008 @ 01:26 AM
reply to post by Extralien

Here is a youtube video of the film footage relating to BOLA.
You can clearly see the extent of cloud cover at this location, but you are also made aware that the footage shown is of a different location as to the famous photograph where many search lights are concentrated on the craft.

posted on Jul, 15 2008 @ 01:41 AM
I'd like to point out, if it hasn't been before. The close proximity to Santa Catalina island, which has been a hotbed for USO activity in the past. There may be a link.......

posted on Jan, 31 2009 @ 05:42 AM
Hello, verry great post.

when there is today

I started the same search you.

and I like to know if you know or is the location of the photographer and pick what it is.
well I would be interested in digital photo of the Time.

posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 01:14 PM
On Saturday February 28, 2009 the Fort MacArthur Museum will present a program titeled "The Great Los Angeles Air Raid of 1942"

posted on Feb, 9 2009 @ 01:27 PM

Is the photo of all the spotlights, the ufo and the exploding shells 100% genuine?

In my own research back when I did my thread on this, I spoke with the LA Times archivist and confirmed the photo's authenticity. She furthermore stated they didn't credit the names of most photographers at the time, and paid them cash for photos. There were apparently other photos of the event, but this one was chosen for publication. She didn't believe they retained any other photos, and I recall seeing Frank Warren as having the original these days.

posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 11:09 PM
The light intensity can give us guidance on the development and use removal of the projector in relation to the UFO.
But this analysis does not suffice as this can be disrupted by any of the processes taking photography, and riding time of installation, quality of the films opening, development etc ...

This remains an estimate

We will decompose the field in depth from the light beam.
Rank 1, 2, 3 and 4 closest to the farthest

[edit on 11//2/0909 by Plusthon]

posted on Feb, 11 2009 @ 11:23 PM
We have beams of light that are symbolized by straight

A1 to A9

I calculated the angles

a straight line angle
A3 to A5 28 °
A9 to A3 20 °
A6 to A9 31 °
A7 to A6 2 °
A8 to A7 7.44 °
A4 to A8 18.46 °
A2 to A4 28.44 °
A1 to A2 5.48 °

[edit on 11//2/0909 by Plusthon]

posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 06:19 PM
Hello all. I apologize for my extensive absence on this case.
Suffice to say that I was occupied by something tremendously important.
I'm back now.

Today I took what might be the final field trip in the location search for the point at which the LA Times Photographer was standing.

It took a lot of research, but I'm pretty certain that I've got what we're looking for.

I have several images formatted and ready to post, but before I do I'd like to draw up a new map, that isolates the field work I did today, so that everyone can clearly follow along.

Next post will include that map, and the assembled composite images of the mountain range in question.

Following that post, I will post a new version of the 'Master Map', including the approximate (down to 1/2 block...) location of the photographer. With the new Master Map, we should have all of the variables to begin solving our equations.

Real answers shortly to follow....

Thanks to everyone for their patience, and continued support of this investigation.


posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 06:58 PM
Okay, here is the Map of the Area I covered today...

You may have to click on the image to get the full sized version in another window, depending upon your browser settings.

Please note that there were 3 possible sites (narrowing it down for over a year...) where the Photographer could have been, all documented today.

Site 1 - Jefferson and La Cienega BLVD

From Site 1, you will see 2 composite images of the mountain range in question, the first composite is assembled from images taken at ground level. The second composite is assembled from images taken from the 2nd floor level.

Site 2 - Jefferson and La Cienega PL

From Site 2, you will see 1 composite image, assembled from images taken at ground level. No higher vantage point was available.

Please note that both Site 1 and Site 2 are located at the vague coordinates 'Jefferson and La Cienega', however Site 1 is the intersection of La Cienega BLVD (a much larger and more modern intersection), while Site 2 is the intersection 1/2 Block to the West, likely where the intersection was actually located in 1942...

Site 3 - South on Jefferson, 1/2 Block from Site 2...

From Site 3, you will see 2 composite images, one from ground level, and one from 2nd floor level.

All composite images will follow shortly...

posted on Feb, 16 2009 @ 07:16 PM
Composite Images...

Site 1 - Ground Level

Site 1 - 2nd Floor Level

Please note that the Mountain Range in Question is depicted on the Right Side of all composite images...

Please note, you may need to click on the Image to open it in it's own window, in order to view the entire image...

top topics

<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in